9

The Ratzinger Option

CRISIS MAGAZINE

JAMES KALB

We live in a time of dissolution, in which natural and traditional ties are growing thinner, and also in a time of consolidation – in which all life is being absorbed by a global economic machine. The results, of course, are becoming less and less livable for most people.

The Church is presented with an opportunity. She is still what she has always been, and as long as she presents what she is, people will continue to find in her what they are missing. As Peter asked, “Where else is there to go?”

Then I noticed that then-Father Joseph Ratzinger said the same thing fifty years ago in a short radio address he presented on Christmas Day in 1969. He told his listeners:

Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new.

The phrase “totally planned world” is typical of the day’s progressive optimism, reflected in many Church documents, regarding the possibilities of social management. But he turns that optimism around. Fr. Ratzinger suggests that such total planning would devalue individual agency – along with human connections, like family and local community – replacing them with an impersonal, all-pervading bureaucratic scheme. The result? This unspeakable loneliness; the feeling that, since everything is already taken care of, one’s life and efforts are pointless.

A secular utopia wouldn’t be a utopia. But such dubious ideas caused quite a stir in the late Sixties and are still found in vogue today. It was in the midst of this confusion that Fr. Ratzinger gave his talk. He saw no quick end to the disorders or the conditions that lay behind them, and commented that “it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals.”

❧

Fr. Ratzinger thought these events would sift the Church: make her smaller, poorer, and less institutionalized. She would still have her clergy, for example, but priests serving “smaller congregations” and “self-contained social groups” would often have to serve part-time so they could provide their own support.

But these events would also purify the Church. She would no longer be able to rely on wealth, power, prestige, or social position, and would “have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.” She would thus become rather like the early Church.

And that would bring important benefits. The loss of social standing, while bad in itself, would increase the personal demands of membership for those who remain and focus attention on the Church’s essential nature. It would put paid to the Church as a political movement or a means to worldly ends. Priests would no longer be looked upon as social workers or bureaucratic functionaries. In fact, that conception of the Church is “dead already,” Fr. Ratzinger told his listeners, and will disappear. Instead, we will see ever more evidently the Church that focuses on God incarnate and eternal life, and so provides what only she can provide.

But the way to this future “more spiritual” Church will require overcoming stubborn ecclesiastical vices. These include accepting the world as the standard, and the equally destructive tendency to treat ourselves that way. The latter can come about, Fr. Ratzinger notes, through either the “pompous self-will” present in any organization, or through the “sectarian narrow-mindedness” that seems hard to avoid in a small self-selected Church with an outlook radically at odds with the rest of society. Both will have to go.

What the Church will need to overcome these faults is what she always needs: sanctity. Sanctity requires the selflessness that sets us free and allows us to see reality. To that end, we will need to overcome self-centeredness and self-indulgence, whether in the everyday form of pursuing pleasure or the more systematic form of denying the need for discipline and renunciation. That process will involve a daily effort that gradually reveals to us how far we still have to go.

❧

All this sounds very difficult, a job for saints or at least those with a serious aspiration to become saints. But that, I suppose, is the point. The smaller, poorer Church of years to come can’t afford mediocrity. It must more devoted than what we see around us today, and that renewal begins within ourselves. But, as the ark of salvation in a less and less livable world, she will more than compensate for the effort and sacrifice.

How long will all this take? Fr. Ratzinger expected “hard going” and a “long and wearisome” process. Even so, the title of his talk was “What Will the Church Look Like in 2000.” He (or whoever assigned the title) was evidently something of an optimist.

Since the time Fr. Ratzinger presented his address the sexual, financial, and doctrinal disorders in the Church – not to mention the worldliness, clericalism, bureaucratization, rejection of the need for personal discipline and practical reform of life – has compounded the liberationist tendency to treat the Church’s basic mission as secular politics and social services. The prospects for reform seem to have gotten worse. The laity have fallen away, Church leadership seems at times to have collapsed, and the purification Fr. Ratzinger foresaw appears hardly to have begun.

But who knows? Life goes on, and tomorrow is another day. Exposure of evil does not always mean evil is becoming worse. And, beyond the corruptions, there are counter-movements and signs of new life – some evident, and some invisible to people who spend too much time reading Twitter and weblogs. No doubt there are others that are hidden from almost everyone. “The kingdom of God,” we are told, “cometh not with observation.” And, as always, there continue to be people who discover the Church as an island of life in a desert. As a convert, I’m one of them.

So, what do we do? Whatever the future may hold – whatever may be happening on TV, the Internet, or behind the scenes entirely – we should follow the way Fr. Ratzinger pointed out fifty years ago. We should be constantly overcoming that within ourselves which makes us “scarcely able any longer to become aware of God.” This is, quite certainly, the way that points to a better future for the Church.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Tagged as Pope Benedict XVI121

By James Kalb

James Kalb is a lawyer, independent scholar, and Catholic convert who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He is the author of The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command (ISI Books, 2008), and, most recently, Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It (Angelico Press, 2013).

CHERCHEZ LA RELIGION

by Jean-Francois Orsini

The ever-growing exacerbated political fight between the left and the right actually hides a much more important conflict; it’s a spiritual conflict.  Spirituality primarily does mean the credence in another dimension of invisible forces and spirits that have serious powers to influence our material world. But here we are not talking about satisfying oneself easily with spiritually lame instruments including crystals, pyramids or other gadgets of the New Age religion. Once we are aware of the existence of the spiritual dimension, it obligates the honest and inquiring mind to pursue ardently the ultimate truths of the spiritual realm.

There is no other instance in history of a cohort of three most powerful philosophers, Diogenes who was the professor of Plato, Plato who was the professor of Aristotle, and Aristotle himself. Aristotle the heir of the third generation came to believe in the existence of a unique, all powerful god. He was the heir of the three who had pursued truth to that glorious conclusion. He was not converted by the revelation stories of the Jewish and Christian creeds that did not appear in his culture. He found God on his own by the ever-concentrated power of these cumulative minds. A mark of that power being that Aristotle’s disciple, Alexander the Great, went on to build an immense empire from Europe to Asia in surprisingly very few years.

Contrast that with the “intellectuals of the left”. They have not reached the ultimate truth; they have very arrogantly proclaiming their unbelief of the existence of God, unaware of their shameful and risible position. To subject one’s beliefs to the wishes of one’s nonintellectual appendages is not very wise.

On the other hand, believing in God and pursuing the truth, we come to the normal conclusion that it would be most reasonable to inquire what God, who made the universe, is expecting from us, who are part of His creation. We are learning about the “natural law”, derived from the divine law, how things are and therefore how they ought to be. We are led to discover and join the religion that presents the most elaborate and perennial doctrine on these matters. The left has no idea of the existence nor meaning of the process. They have, on their own, decided that what ought to be is what they want ought to be; and they want it now. They are like petulant children who want their way no matter what;  rational arguments being absolutely unwelcome.

They want babies in the womb to be even less than untermenschen, “sub-humans”, that was just as Nazis viewed the Jews and other populations to be annihilated. Growing humans in the womb are only blobs of flesh of no inherent value whatsoever. They have decided that “man and women He made them” does not apply. Instead scores of genders are discernable in the penumbra of their low-energy minds. They call all who do not agree with them: racists.

It is time to respond properly to this charge. It is high time to call them “Satanists”. From our inquires of the true nature and narrative of the world of the spiritual, we know of the existence of Satan, the enemy of mankind. The left are the effective minions of Satan who fight against the family with “same-sex marriage”, against marriage and spouses with no default divorce, against children with abortion, against the state with globalism, against the economy and prosperity with socialism, and especially against religion, and the truth about God, with their impenetrable “separation between church and state”. They rightly deserved to be demonized.

Jean-Francois Orsini has written articles in the Wanderer and Crisis publications. He has an MBA and a doctorate in Business from the Wharton school in Finance, Organizational Theory, Strategy and Management Science. He was prior of his third order Dominican chapter for two terms.

Sunday, July 28, 2019

How do we know if Francis is a Antipope or Heretical Pope & What can be Done?

It appeared to me a few days ago that the former highest doctrinal authority in the Church, ex-Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller admitted that Francis could be a antipope.

Remember that only an antipope when he speaks “ex cathedra” can speak what is “invalid” because the false pope’s papacy is invalid.

LifeSiteNews reported that Cardinal Muller said:

“‘[I]f he [Francis] spoke ex cathedra… make[ing] possible the ordination of women… in contradiction to the defined doctrine of the Church,’ he continues”

“‘It would be invalid,’ he adds.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Cardinal Muller: No pope or council could permit female deacons, ‘it would be invalid,” Friday July 26, 2019)

Steven O’Reilly at Roma Locuta Est who always bends over backward to be fair and cover all angles showed the Vatican I background to my assertion a few days ago of the Muller statement. Moreover, he added that it could, also, mean Francis is a heretical pope:

“However, as Catholics well know, this poses an obvious difficulty.  Vatican I defined the dogma of papal infallibility in the following terms (emphasis added):

‘…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.’  (Pastor Aeternus cited in Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, Denzinger, 1839)”

“In addition, this definition is followed by a canon, which states: ‘But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema’ (Denzinger 1840).

Clearly, a faithful Catholic will note the seeming disconnect between what Pastor Aeternus defined infallibly, and what Cardinal Müller said above. But, the Cardinal is no dummy as to suggest ex cathedra statements can be disregarded. This suggests, to me at least, a hidden, unstated and inescapable implication in the Cardinal’s statement, as well as being an indication of how he and other Cardinals are now privately viewing Pope Francis–though this is speculative.”

“There is only one way, in logic at least, for a Catholic to accept Vatican I on papal infallibility but reject a heretical declaration that seemingly meets the formal conditions of being ex cathedra.
Given that a true pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching an error ex cathedra, it follows that if a man, seemingly “pope,” were to teach something which denies or conflicts with a known truth of the Catholic Faith it must be either (1) the man thought to be “pope” was never a true pope to begin with, or (2) the man thought to be “pope” had, at some point in the past, alreadyfallen through heresy or apostasy from the Petrine office. Those are the logical implications as I see them. Whether these are intended by the Cardinal or not with respect to Francis, in such a hypothetical scenario as he outlined, I cannot say.”

“If this a fair analysis, it may suggest the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis. If nothing else, it certainly is a shot across the bow of Pope Francis. It does suggest, along with other statements from the likes of Cardinal Brandmuller, that some in the “resistance” are reaching the point where they can bend no more. So, after so many years, we may be reaching a decisive moment.”
[https://romalocutaest.com/2019/07/27/when-is-a-pope-not-a-pope/]

If “the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis,” it seemed proper to go over how and why Francis might be a antipope or a heretical pope. 

We will start with why he may be a antipope:

Bishop Rene Gracida  and others have convincingly demonstrated that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals. If, after the investigation, Francis is found to be a antipope then a new pope would have to be elected after Benedict XVI’s resignation is investigated to see if his resignation was valid. If Benedict’s resignation was invalid then he would either have to resign validly or remain pope until his death.

Getting back to the topic of violation of “papal election procedures,” renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”:

“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).” 

“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

“Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.” 
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt] 

Next, why might Francis be a heretical pope:

As Muller asserted “No… Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. [He] would stand in contradiction [of] the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid.” 

In other words, if Francis taught heresy that contradicted Church defined doctrine he would be a antipope or a heretical pope. A antipope and, apparently in
O’Reilly‘s view a heretical pope, when he speaks “ex cathedra” can speak what is “invalid” because the false pope’s papacy is invalid. Muller wrote:

“The Magisterium of the Pope and of the bishops has no authority over the substance of the Sacraments (Trent, Decree on Communion under both species, DH 1728; Sacrosanctum Concilium 21). Therefore, no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid. Independent of this, there is the equality of all baptized in the life of Grace, and in the vocation to all ecclesial offices and functions for which exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself is not necessary.” (On the Synodal Process in Germany and the Synod for the Amazon by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, text posted by LifeSiteNew, 7/26/2019)
[https://romalocutaest.com/2019/07/27/when-is-a-pope-not-a-pope/]

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

The renowned scholar Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who was one of the top experts in modern times of the subjects of papal validity and heretical popes gave a brief overview of his authority on this matters:

“In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification ‘theologically certain’ for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study ‘written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .’”
[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope]

Here is what de Silveira says in his book “Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes (Page 176)” on the subject of heretical popes:

“Conclusion 

“Resuming: We believe that a careful examination of the question of a Pope heretic, with the 
theological elements of which we dispose today, permits one to conclude that an eventual Pope heretic would lose his charge in the moment in which his heresy became ‘notorious and publicly divulged’.”

“And we think that this sentence is not only intrinsically probable , but certain , since the reasons 
allegeable in its defense appear to us as absolutely cogent. Besides, in the works which we have 
consulted, we have not found any argument which persuaded us of the opposite. “

“(1 ) The second opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine – See pp. 1 56 ft. 

(2) The first subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine – See p. 170. 

(3) The second subdivision which we proposed to the fifth opinion – See p. 170. 

(4) The third subdivision which we proposed on the fifth opinion. – See p. 1 70. 

(5) The fourth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine . – See pp. 161 ff. 

(6) We transcribe that long argumentation on pp. 1 64 ff. – See also note 2 of p. 1 64. 

(7) One ought not to see shades of conciliarism in the principle that ecclesiastical organisms, as the Council, can omit a pronouncement declaring the eventual cessation of functions of a Pope heretic, as long as these organisms do not claim for themselves any right other than that enjoyed by any one of the faithful. For motives of mere convenience or courtesy, it could behoove these organisms to make such a declaration, in the first place; but this priority would not constitute for them a right of their own, or even less exclusive.” [https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

Finally, Dr. John R. T. Lamont, philosopher and theologian, explains the procedures of how Francis’s papacy could cease if he is declared a heretical pope by the Church: 

“Some… argue that the dubia and other criticisms of Amoris Laetitia that have been made already suffice as warnings to Pope Francis, and hence that he can now be judged to be guilty of the canonical crime of heresy…”

But for juridical purposes – especially for the very serious purpose of judging a Pope to be a heretic – they do not suffice. The evidence needed for a juridical judgment of such gravity has to take a form that is entirely clear and beyond dispute. A formal warning from a number of members of the College of Cardinals that is then disregarded by the Pope would constitute such evidence.”

“The possibility of a Pope being canonically guilty of heresy has long been admitted in the Church. It is acknowledged in the Decretals of Gratian There is no dispute among Catholic theologians on this point – even among theologians like Bellarmine who do not think that a Pope is in fact capable of being a heretic…”

“It is to be hoped that the correction of Pope Francis does not have to proceed this far, and that he will either reject the heresies he has announced or resign his office…”

“Removing him from office against his will would require the election of a new Pope, and would probably leave the Church with Francis as an anti-Pope contesting the authority of the new Pope. If Francis refuses to renounce either his heresy or his office, however, this situation will just have to be faced.”

To read the whole article click below:

[http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/article-considerations-on-dubia-of-four.html?m=1]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

FRED MARTINEZ

Sunday, July 28, 2019

How do we know if Francis is a Antipope or Heretical Pope & What can be Done?

It appeared to me a few days ago that the former highest doctrinal authority in the Church, ex-Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller admitted that Francis could be a antipope.

Remember that only an antipope when he speaks “ex cathedra” can speak what is “invalid” because the false pope’s papacy is invalid.

LifeSiteNews reported that Cardinal Muller said:

“‘[I]f he [Francis] spoke ex cathedra… make[ing] possible the ordination of women… in contradiction to the defined doctrine of the Church,’ he continues”

“‘It would be invalid,’ he adds.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Cardinal Muller: No pope or council could permit female deacons, ‘it would be invalid,” Friday July 26, 2019)

Steven O’Reilly at Roma Locuta Est who always bends over backward to be fair and cover all angles showed the Vatican I background to my assertion a few days ago of the Muller statement. Moreover, he added that it could, also, mean Francis is a heretical pope:

“However, as Catholics well know, this poses an obvious difficulty.  Vatican I defined the dogma of papal infallibility in the following terms (emphasis added):

‘…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.’  (Pastor Aeternus cited in Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, Denzinger, 1839)”

“In addition, this definition is followed by a canon, which states: ‘But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema’ (Denzinger 1840).

Clearly, a faithful Catholic will note the seeming disconnect between what Pastor Aeternus defined infallibly, and what Cardinal Müller said above. But, the Cardinal is no dummy as to suggest ex cathedra statements can be disregarded. This suggests, to me at least, a hidden, unstated and inescapable implication in the Cardinal’s statement, as well as being an indication of how he and other Cardinals are now privately viewing Pope Francis–though this is speculative.”

“There is only one way, in logic at least, for a Catholic to accept Vatican I on papal infallibility but reject a heretical declaration that seemingly meets the formal conditions of being ex cathedra.
Given that a true pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching an error ex cathedra, it follows that if a man, seemingly “pope,” were to teach something which denies or conflicts with a known truth of the Catholic Faith it must be either (1) the man thought to be “pope” was never a true pope to begin with, or (2) the man thought to be “pope” had, at some point in the past, alreadyfallen through heresy or apostasy from the Petrine office. Those are the logical implications as I see them. Whether these are intended by the Cardinal or not with respect to Francis, in such a hypothetical scenario as he outlined, I cannot say.”

“If this a fair analysis, it may suggest the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis. If nothing else, it certainly is a shot across the bow of Pope Francis. It does suggest, along with other statements from the likes of Cardinal Brandmuller, that some in the “resistance” are reaching the point where they can bend no more. So, after so many years, we may be reaching a decisive moment.”
[https://romalocutaest.com/2019/07/27/when-is-a-pope-not-a-pope/]

If “the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis,” it seemed proper to go over how and why Francis might be a antipope or a heretical pope. 

We will start with why he may be a antipope:

Bishop Rene Gracida  and others have convincingly demonstrated that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals. If, after the investigation, Francis is found to be a antipope then a new pope would have to be elected after Benedict XVI’s resignation is investigated to see if his resignation was valid. If Benedict’s resignation was invalid then he would either have to resign validly or remain pope until his death.

Getting back to the topic of violation of “papal election procedures,” renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”:

“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).” 

“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

“Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.” 
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt] 

Next, why might Francis be a heretical pope:

As Muller asserted “No… Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. [He] would stand in contradiction [of] the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid.” 

In other words, if Francis taught heresy that contradicted Church defined doctrine he would be a antipope or a heretical pope. A antipope and, apparently in
O’Reilly‘s view a heretical pope, when he speaks “ex cathedra” can speak what is “invalid” because the false pope’s papacy is invalid. Muller wrote:

“The Magisterium of the Pope and of the bishops has no authority over the substance of the Sacraments (Trent, Decree on Communion under both species, DH 1728; Sacrosanctum Concilium 21). Therefore, no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid. Independent of this, there is the equality of all baptized in the life of Grace, and in the vocation to all ecclesial offices and functions for which exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself is not necessary.” (On the Synodal Process in Germany and the Synod for the Amazon by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, text posted by LifeSiteNew, 7/26/2019)
[https://romalocutaest.com/2019/07/27/when-is-a-pope-not-a-pope/]

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

The renowned scholar Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who was one of the top experts in modern times of the subjects of papal validity and heretical popes gave a brief overview of his authority on this matters:

“In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification ‘theologically certain’ for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study ‘written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .’”
[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope]

Here is what de Silveira says in his book “Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes (Page 176)” on the subject of heretical popes:

“Conclusion 

“Resuming: We believe that a careful examination of the question of a Pope heretic, with the 
theological elements of which we dispose today, permits one to conclude that an eventual Pope heretic would lose his charge in the moment in which his heresy became ‘notorious and publicly divulged’.”

“And we think that this sentence is not only intrinsically probable , but certain , since the reasons 
allegeable in its defense appear to us as absolutely cogent. Besides, in the works which we have 
consulted, we have not found any argument which persuaded us of the opposite. “

“(1 ) The second opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine – See pp. 1 56 ft. 

(2) The first subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine – See p. 170. 

(3) The second subdivision which we proposed to the fifth opinion – See p. 170. 

(4) The third subdivision which we proposed on the fifth opinion. – See p. 1 70. 

(5) The fourth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine . – See pp. 161 ff. 

(6) We transcribe that long argumentation on pp. 1 64 ff. – See also note 2 of p. 1 64. 

(7) One ought not to see shades of conciliarism in the principle that ecclesiastical organisms, as the Council, can omit a pronouncement declaring the eventual cessation of functions of a Pope heretic, as long as these organisms do not claim for themselves any right other than that enjoyed by any one of the faithful. For motives of mere convenience or courtesy, it could behoove these organisms to make such a declaration, in the first place; but this priority would not constitute for them a right of their own, or even less exclusive.” [https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

Finally, Dr. John R. T. Lamont, philosopher and theologian, explains the procedures of how Francis’s papacy could cease if he is declared a heretical pope by the Church: 

“Some… argue that the dubia and other criticisms of Amoris Laetitia that have been made already suffice as warnings to Pope Francis, and hence that he can now be judged to be guilty of the canonical crime of heresy…”

But for juridical purposes – especially for the very serious purpose of judging a Pope to be a heretic – they do not suffice. The evidence needed for a juridical judgment of such gravity has to take a form that is entirely clear and beyond dispute. A formal warning from a number of members of the College of Cardinals that is then disregarded by the Pope would constitute such evidence.”

“The possibility of a Pope being canonically guilty of heresy has long been admitted in the Church. It is acknowledged in the Decretals of Gratian There is no dispute among Catholic theologians on this point – even among theologians like Bellarmine who do not think that a Pope is in fact capable of being a heretic…”

“It is to be hoped that the correction of Pope Francis does not have to proceed this far, and that he will either reject the heresies he has announced or resign his office…”

“Removing him from office against his will would require the election of a new Pope, and would probably leave the Church with Francis as an anti-Pope contesting the authority of the new Pope. If Francis refuses to renounce either his heresy or his office, however, this situation will just have to be faced.”

To read the whole article click below:

[http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/article-considerations-on-dubia-of-four.html?m=1]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

FROM THE MAGAZINE CITY JOURNAL

What’s Exceptional About American Exceptionalism?

The nation was founded on natural law and natural right, not myth or tribal legend.Allen C. GuelzoSummer 2019 The Social Order

Americans like to believe that they are an exceptional people. We speak of ourselves as a nation lifting our light beside the golden door, a people who “more than self their country loved and mercy more than life,” in the words of “America the Beautiful.” The first person to apply the term “exceptional” to Americans was a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, in his prophetic survey of American life in the 1830s, Democracy in America. But the germ of the idea had been around even longer, and it has never lost its grip on our imagination. Rallying Americans to his program for a new “Morning in America,” Ronald Reagan described America in almost mystical terms as a “shining city on a hill.” The light it shone with was like none that lighted any other nation. “I’ve always believed that this blessed land was set apart in a special way,” Reagan said in 1983, “that there was some divine plan that placed the two great continents here between the oceans to be found by people from every corner of the Earth who had a deep love for freedom.” In his 2012 presidential bid, Mitt Romney hailed America as “an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world.” By contrast, the man who defeated Romney pointedly spoke of America in unexceptional terms, explaining to the Financial Times that if America was exceptional, it was only in the same sense that “the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” American exceptionalism has almost become a modern political litmus test.

But what is “American exceptionalism”—and what is exceptional about it? Reagan’s invocation of the “shining city on a hill” echoed what many commentators have assumed is the basic statement of American exceptionalism: John Winthrop’s layman’s sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity,” which he delivered to the colonists he was leading to find refuge for English Puritans in Massachusetts in 1629. But none of the British North American colonies—not even Winthrop’s Massachusetts—saw itself as an exception to the basic European assumptions about how a society should be organized. All the colonies, in varying measures, believed that societies were organized as hierarchies—pyramids, if you will—with the king at the top, the lords and nobility beneath, and the common folk on the bottom. Like all good pyramids, the colonial one was supposed to be static; each layer was to work reciprocally with the others, not in competition. The idea that people could start small and poor and work their way up to the top was considered dangerous. Those who did make it to the top did so, not through work but through the patronage of those already there. There would remain differences between England and its colonies—as native-born Englishmen would remind their colonial brethren—but those distinctions existed within the same recognizable European hierarchy of kings, lords, and commons.

That might have been the way America developed, too, if not for two events. The first was the Enlightenment, which proposed a radically exceptional way of reconceiving human societies. The Enlightenment began as a scientific movement, and especially as a rebellion by scientists like Galileo and Isaac Newton, against the medieval interpretation of the physical world. Medieval thinkers viewed the physical universe as no less a hierarchy than the political world, with Earth at the bottom, and ascending in levels of perfection through the moon, the planets, the stars, and finally, the heavens. This structure had already begun to come apart in the 1500s, when Niklaus Copernicus insisted that viewing the solar system in this way was contradicted by observing the motion of the planets themselves. But it took its greatest blow from Galileo, who trained the newfangled telescope on the moon and observed that nothing about it looked like the next step up in a hierarchy from Earth. It remained for Isaac Newton to show us that the various parts of the physical world were not related by order or rank but by natural laws and forces, like gravity, which were uniform and equal in the operation.

Eventually, people wondered whether the new rules that described the operations of the physical world might have some application to the political world, too. Taking their cue from the revolution in the physical sciences, philosophers sought to describe a natural political order, free of artificial hierarchies such as kings, lords, and commons. They dared to talk about equality rather than pyramids, about universal natural rights rather than inherited status, about commerce rather than patronage, and to question why some half-wit should get to wear a crown, just because his father had done so. But all the Enlightenment’s political philosophers could offer as alternatives were thought experiments about desert islands or ideal commonwealths, and the kings continued to sit undisturbed on their thrones.

The second event was the one that really gave birth to American exceptionalism: the American Revolution. For in one stupendous burst of energy, Americans overturned the entire structure—political, constitutional, legal, and social—of hierarchy and applied the Enlightenment’s thought experiments about equality and natural rights to practical politics.

The confidence that Americans displayed in the existence of a natural political order based on natural rights and natural law was so profound that Thomas Jefferson could describe the most basic of these rights—to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—as “self-evident.” The Virginia Declaration of Rights—another product of the year 1776—explained that “all men . . . have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Americans did not merely demand a corrected version of British common law or Britain’s hierarchical society; they proclaimed that they were creating a novus ordo seclorum. Their voice, said Frederick Douglass, “was as the trump of an archangel, summoning hoary forms of oppression and time-honored tyranny, to judgment. . . . It announced the advent of a nation, based upon human brotherhood and the self-evident truths of liberty and equality. Its mission was the redemption of the world from the bondage of ages.”

“The idea that people could start small and poor and work their way up to the top was considered dangerous.”Creating a new politics in America that broke decisively with the past proved surprisingly easier than we might have expected. Whatever lip service they had paid to the old theories of hierarchy during the century and a half before 1776, the colonists, in everyday practice, had developed their own consent-based civil society, created ad hoc legislatures, written their own laws, and spread landownership so broadly across the North Atlantic seaboard that, by the time of the Revolution, 90 percent of the colonists were landowners. Benjamin Franklin remembered that his father, a tallow chandler in Boston, had no particular education, “but his great Excellence lay in a sound understanding and solid judgment in prudential matters, both in private and publick affairs. . . . I remember well his being frequently visited by leading people, who consulted him for his opinion in affairs of the town or of the church he belonged to, and showed a good deal of respect for his judgment and advice: he was also . . . frequently chosen an arbitrator between contending parties.” Americans like Franklin’s father were, in effect, already desert islands and ideal commonwealths; the political philosophy of the Enlightenment gave them a theory that matched the realities they had been living.The American mix of Enlightenment theory and practical experience in government produced a result that was seen from the first as—there is no other word for it—exceptional. In revolutionary America, reveled Tom Paine, Americans are about “to begin the world over again. . . . The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few months.” That “portion of freedom” would be a political order with no ranks, no prelates, no hierarchy; a government that limited itself, and confined itself by a written Constitution; and an identity based not on race or blood or soil or ancestry or even language but on a single proposition as relentlessly logical as it was frighteningly brief, that “all men are created equal.”In European eyes, this was folly. The American decision to license equal citizens to govern themselves invited anarchy. Too many areas of public life, argued Otto von Bismarck in 1870, required an authoritative government to intervene and direct, and the more that authority was based on hierarchy and monarchy, the better. “Believe me,” prophesied Bismarck, “one cannot lead or bring to prosperity a great nation without the principle of authority—that is, the Monarchy.”Americans compensated for whatever vacuum was made by limiting government through the invention of private, voluntary associations, “little communities by themselves,” as Pennsylvania leader George Bryan called them, to manage their affairs, without the need for a swollen imperial bureaucracy 3,000 miles away. And so they did: in Philadelphia alone, newly independent Americans created the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and for the Relief of Free Negroes, the Guardians of the Poor of the City of Philadelphia, the Female Society of Philadelphia for the Relief and Employment of the Poor, the Hibernian Society, the Magdalen Society for the Shelter and Reformation of Fallen Women, the Society of the Free Instruction of Female Children, the Philadelphia Society for the Free Instruction of Indigent Boys, the Indigent Widows and Single Women’s Society—all without government sanction. Americans took association to the level of an art. Tocqueville surveyed the proliferation of American self-help groups and concluded that “the extraordinary fragmentation of administrative power” in America was offset by the multiplicity of “religious, moral . . . commercial and industrial associations” that substituted themselves for European lords and chancellors.Thus, American exceptionalism began as a new kind of politics. Americans had not merely done something different; they had captured in living form a natural order that made the old political systems of Europe look as artificial and irrational as fully as Newton’s laws had made medieval physics irrelevant. “We Americans are the peculiar chosen people,” wrote Herman Melville, “the Israel of our time; we bear the ark of the liberties of the world.”But establishing a novel political framework was to create only the first leg of what became a three-legged stool of American exceptionalism. If it was not inherited rank and titles that gave authority in society, then it was up to the free initiative of citizens to make of themselves what they wanted, and with government itself so deliberately self-limited, their energies would run instead in the direction of commerce. They would create not only a new politics but also a new economy—the second leg.“What, then, is the American, this new man?” asked transplanted Frenchman Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur in 1782. “He is an American,” Crèvecoeur replied, who has stopped doing what others tell him he must do. He has escaped “from involuntary idleness, servile dependence, penury, and useless labour” and has “passed to toils of a very different nature, rewarded by ample subsistence.” Inside the stiff boundaries of hierarchy, Europeans looked down upon labor as slavery and trade as the unsavory pursuit of the small-minded bourgeoisie—in America, there was almost nothing except a bourgeoisie, and it gloried in labor and commerce. British novelist Frances Trollope was appalled to listen to Americans “in the street, on the road, or in the field, at the theatre, the coffee-house, or at home,” who never seemed to talk “without the word DOLLAR being pronounced between them.” But other Europeans were enchanted by the liberty of American commerce. J. C. Loudoun’s Encyclopaedia of Agriculturerecommended that its British readers emigrate to America, since the American “form of government” guaranteed that “property is secure, and personal liberty greater there than anywhere else . . . and both maintained at less expense than under any government in the world.” In America, wrote the French evangelical pastor Georges Fisch, in 1863, “There is no restraint whatever on the liberty of business transactions.” Nor did it matter much who succeeded on a given day and who didn’t, because the next day those who were down were likely to be up.Abraham Lincoln captured this dynamic when he said that in America, “every man can make himself.” There would always be extremes of wealth and inequalities of enterprise. What mitigated those inequalities was an incessant tumbling-up and tumbling-down, so that one man’s wealth achieved at one moment could pass into the hands of others at another. “The prudent, penniless beginner in the world,” Lincoln said in 1859 (with his own history in mind), “labors for wages a while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him.” This, Lincoln believed, represented a “just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all.” Not all would prosper, but that was no argument against the “system” as a whole.American free enterprise, Lincoln believed, was a “just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all.” (ALEXANDER GARDNER/U.S. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS/GETTY IMAGES)Significantly, the energy with which Americans threw themselves into unfettered commercial exchange was soon seen as a primary obstacle in the path of a newer enemy of hierarchy—socialism—which emerged out of the self-inflicted wreckage of nineteenth-century aristocracies. Socialism’s great architect, Karl Marx, believed that every society would move out of the old world of hierarchy into capitalism; inevitably, capitalism would yield to socialism; hence, the more advanced a nation becomes in capitalism, the closer it must be to embracing socialism—and eventually Communism.But Marx was baffled by how the United States defied this rule. No nation seemed more fully imbued with capitalism, yet no nation showed less interest in becoming socialist. This became one of the unresolved puzzles of socialist theory, and it gave rise to frustrated socialists (like Werner Sombart) who struggled with the question: Why is there no socialism in America? Sombart blamed it on the drug of material abundance: socialism, he complained, had foundered in America “on the shoals of roast beef and apple pie.” But another socialist, Leon Samson, had seen better than Sombart that the real enemy of socialism was exceptionalism itself, because Americans give “a solemn assent to a handful of final notions—democracy, liberty, opportunity, to all of which the American adheres rationalistically much as a socialist adheres to his socialism.”Actually, Marx and Sombart were wrong. There had been an American socialism; they were reluctant to recognize it as such because it came not in the form of a workers’ rebellion against capital but in the emergence of a plantation oligarchy in the slaveholding South. This “feudal socialism,” based on race, called into question all the premises of American exceptionalism, starting with the Declaration of Independence. Nor were slavery’s apologists shy about linking this oligarchy to European socialism, since, as George Fitzhugh asserted in 1854, “Slavery produces association of labor, and is one of the ends all Communists and Socialists desire.” What was extraordinary about this vast step away from American exceptionalism was the titanic effort that Americans made, in the Civil War, to correct it. That struggle—a civil war that (as Lincoln said) understood the American republic to be “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” and aimed at the completion of the project of political equality for all its people—may be the most exceptional moment in all of American history, for there is no record of any other conflict quite like the war that Americans waged among themselves, to “die to make men free.” And everyone, down to the slaves themselves, knew that freedom and equality were means toward social mobility and economic self-transformation, not a frozen egalitarianism. “We have as a people no past and very little present, but a boundless and glorious future,” said Frederick Douglass, himself once a slave—one who nevertheless believed that American opportunity was without a copy anywhere else. “America is not only the exception to the general rule, but the social wonder of the world.”The third leg of the exceptionalist stool was the attitude and relationship that the United States was to adopt toward the rest of the world, where hierarchy still ruled. This has proved a wobbly leg—it divides even exceptionalists—if only because Americans’ notions of what exceptionalism dictates in terms of policy toward other nations have changed since the Founding.The novelty of exceptionalism’s first two legs—politics and economics—was so great that it was hard for Americans not to see them as part of a deliberate plan. Even before the Revolution, Jonathan Edwards, the architect of American religious revivals, had viewed America as the linchpin of a scheme of divine redemption for the world. “We may well look upon the discovery of so great a part of the world as America, and bringing the gospel into it,” he wrote, “as one thing by which divine Providence is preparing the way for the future glorious times of the church.” Timothy Dwight, Edwards’s grandson, took to poetry to translate these expectations about America’s role in redeeming Earth from Satan into a sacred mission to proclaim an American political gospel:As the day-spring unbounded, thy splendor shall flow,
And earth’s little kingdoms before thee shall bow;
While the ensigns of union, in triumph unfurl’d,
Hush the tumult of war, and give peace to the world.But if God did have a special role for America, it was one that America was strictly charged to keep safe on its own shores; its role would be passive and self-protective. Far from any desire to share their nation’s redemptive culture, Americans tended to regard the rest of the world as a potential threat, eager to strangle the American experiment by the reimposition of empire or by association with more unstable attempts at revolution—as in France. “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America’s] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be,” promised John Quincy Adams in 1821. “But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” So when the Hungarian revolutionary Louis Kossuth came to America in 1852 to drum up support for his rebellion against the Austrian Empire, Lincoln spoke of him cordially, based on “our continued devotion to the principles of our free institutions.” But Lincoln made it plain that “it is the duty of our government to neither foment, nor assist, such revolutions in other governments.”We were not, however, always consistent in this. The outsize influence of Southern slaveholding interests in American politics in the 1840s helped drag us into a war with Mexico, for no better reason than to acquire large stretches of territory that Southerners hoped to convert into slave states. We half-blundered into the Spanish-American War in 1898 and found ourselves with a colonial empire on our hands, in the form of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and, for all practical purposes, Cuba. And in 1917, we thrust ourselves into World War I behind President Woodrow Wilson’s notion that American democracy ought to be exported to Europe. These attempts to convert American exceptionalism into a missionary endeavor nearly always met with sabotage by other nations, which resented our claims to some unique political virtue; and they met with serious criticism by other Americans—even outright rejection, as when America declined to join the League of Nations.But even those criticisms disappeared after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which not only thrust us again into a worldwide conflict but also presented the question of how we could prevent such world crises from erupting. It had been demonstrated one too many times to American policymakers that the European states, left to themselves, were incapable of establishing a peaceful continental order; so we have found ourselves, ever since, forced into the role of savior of civilization, whether through the Marshall Plan, NATO, NAFTA, the Security Council, or sometimes through simple unilateralism.We have accepted this role since World War II, often because we believed we had little choice. But this role has had an adverse effect on American exceptionalism by repeatedly involving the United States in foreign-policy projects that do not yield easily to American solutions—and that then raise doubts about the exceptionalist assumptions behind those solutions. When we have turned to multilateral or multinational solutions, we find ourselves yoked to European and other allies, which, even if they have long since shucked the mantle of aristocracy and inherited hierarchy, have often replaced it with vast social bureaucracies that serve much the same purpose. If we act unilaterally, we find ourselves hounded by international condemnations of American claims of arrogance based on exceptionalism. If we fail to act, we are accused of isolationism.The third leg is not the only one to suffer the wobbles. We are, for one thing, becoming less reliant on voluntary associations to accomplish the tasks of American society. We often see this illustrated in statistics showing how millennials have staged an unprecedented withdrawal from American churches, so that the share of Americans who refuse any religious affiliation has risen from one in 20 in 1972 to one in five today. But this is only part of a larger American withdrawal from a broad range of voluntary associations, from the PTA to bowling leagues. Between 1973 and 1995, the number of Americans who reported attending “a public meeting on town or school affairs” fell by more than a third; PTA membership fell from more than 12 million in 1964 to barely 5 million in 1982. Even mainline civic organizations, such as the Boy Scouts and the Red Cross, have suffered declines since the 1970s. In the most general sense, Americans’ trust in one another has declined from a peak in the mid-1960s (when 56 percent of survey respondents affirmed that “most people can be trusted”) to a low today, in which only one in three Americans believes that “most people can be trusted.” Among millennials, it’s as low as one in five.In the place of voluntary association, we have come to rely on state agencies and administrative law. This development has roots leading back to the Progressivism of the past century, which believed that American society had become too complex to be left to ordinary citizens, who lack the expertise to make government work efficiently. The same conviction animates modern progressives, as illustrated by the notorious 2012 campaign video The Life of Julia, which casts the life of one American as an utterly unexceptional progress through one European-style bureaucracy after another.We have also seen the rise of identity politics, which has made us shy of asserting the old exceptionalism because every identity is now considered exceptional in itself. One’s identity as an American fades—even becomes optional—beside one’s identity as part of an ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural minority. This moves us a world away from Lincoln’s belief that the proposition set out in the Declaration trumped all other identities.We’re no longer even sure that the Declaration has persuasive power. We are, writes Peter Beinart, “products of an educational system that, more than in the past, emphasizes inclusion and diversity, which may breed a discontent with claims that America is better than other nations.” Even conservative jurists like the late William Rehnquist allowed that U.S. courts should “begin looking to the decisions of other [nations’] constitutional courts to aid in their deliberative process.”But nothing in our national life has so undermined confidence in American exceptionalism as the erosion of economic mobility. From the time we began measuring gross domestic product in the 1940s until 1970, American GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent; from 1970 to 1994, it slid to a growth rate of only 1.54 percent, recovered briefly to 2.26 percent, and then began sliding to its pre-Trump level of 1.21 percent. From 1948 until 1972, Americans in the lower 90 percent of income-earners saw their incomes rise by 2.65 percent annually—almost twice the income growth experienced by the same group between 1917 and 1948. Since 1972, though, the growth rate for the 90 percent has collapsed—in fact, turned negative—and middle-class workers who began their careers in the center of the earnings curve have seen their fortunes decline by 20 percent since 1980. The United States has become as economically immobile as the United Kingdom, where the top 10 percent calcify into a self-perpetuating aristocracy that sees itself as part of global networks of communications and exchange and feels little sympathy for those left behind.

“Nothing has so undermined confidence in American exceptionalism as the erosion of economic mobility.”Is American exceptionalism merely an artifact of an earlier, more confident time in our history, which should now yield to the blandishments of globalization and conformity to multinational expectations? Only, I think, if we regard the ideas of the American Founders as being mere historical artifacts, too. What made the American experiment exceptional was precisely that it was not founded (like other national identities) on some myth or tribal legend but on the discovery of natural laws and natural rights as unarguable as gravity and born from the same intellectual source. Unhappily, natural law philosophy has been bumped from its place as the American philosophy by the pragmatism of William James and his heirs, and even more by the values pluralism of John Rawls and literary postmodernism. These approaches were supposed to liberate the mind from the restraint of fictitious narratives of honor, truth, and law—but overthrowing these principles merely became a platform for egotism and unfettered lust for power.To discount American exceptionalism is to suggest that the American political order itself was only a figment of one nation’s imagination, at one time. If there is no such natural law, then, yes, let us discard exceptionalism; but let us then say that neither the old hierarchy nor the new bureaucracy is wrong, either, and accept that all politics is merely an arena in which power, rather than law or right, determines our future.I believe that the American experiment, based on the Declaration and embodied in the Constitution, belongs to an exceptional moment in human history, and remains exceptional. I believe that the U.S. economy is flexible enough to recover its mobility and astonish the world with its capacity to disrupt artificial barriers. And I believe that we can repair the deviations we have sustained from an overconfident mission-mentality without needing to accommodate ourselves to the mores of globalization. Globalization, after all, has been no great success; its main accomplishment, as Christopher Lasch reminded us in his final book, The Revolt of the Elites, has not been international peace or prosperity but “the cosmopolitanism of the favored few . . . uninformed by the practice of citizenship.”The task of restoring confidence in our exceptionalism will nevertheless be a daunting one. Exceptionalism will have to become what Lincoln called a “civil religion,” to be “breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap . . . taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges . . . written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs . . . preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.” The task will require a determined pushback against progressive unexceptionalism and the idea that only government can ensure efficiency and happiness. It will involve the revival of the rule of law (rather than agencies), the rejuvenation of our voluntary associations, and the celebration of their role in our public life. And it will force us to lift the burden of economic sclerosis, not merely with the aim of producing simple material abundance but also with the goal of promoting a national empathy, in which, as Georges Fisch saw in 1863, Americans rise and fall, and rise and fall again, without the stigma that consigns half the nation to a basket of deplorables.Can this, realistically, be done? Can we disentangle our public life from the grasp of the new hierarchy of bureaucrats and, overseas, pull back from foreign-policy crusades? Can we, in short, recur successfully to our first principles?Well, we did it once before.

Allen C. Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College and the author of Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer Presidentand other books.

.

THE FORMER HIGHEST DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH, THE EX-PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, CARDINAL GERHARD MUELLER ADMITTED THAT FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL COULD BE AN ANTIPOPE

Sunday, July 28, 2019

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

How do we know if Francis is a Antipope or Heretical Pope & What can be Done?

It appeared to me a few days ago that the former highest doctrinal authority in the Church, ex-Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller admitted that Francis could be a antipope.

Remember that only an antipope when he speaks “ex cathedra” can speak what is “invalid” because the false pope’s papacy is invalid.

LifeSiteNews reported that Cardinal Muller said:

“‘[I]f he [Francis] spoke ex cathedra… make[ing] possible the ordination of women… in contradiction to the defined doctrine of the Church,’ he continues”

“‘It would be invalid,’ he adds.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Cardinal Muller: No pope or council could permit female deacons, ‘it would be invalid,” Friday July 26, 2019)

Steven O’Reilly at Roma Locuta Est who always bends over backward to be fair and cover all angles showed the Vatican I background to my assertion a few days ago of the Muller statement. Moreover, he added that it could, also, mean Francis is a heretical pope:

“However, as Catholics well know, this poses an obvious difficulty.  Vatican I defined the dogma of papal infallibility in the following terms (emphasis added):

‘…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.’  (Pastor Aeternus cited in Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, Denzinger, 1839)”

“In addition, this definition is followed by a canon, which states: ‘But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema’ (Denzinger 1840).

Clearly, a faithful Catholic will note the seeming disconnect between what Pastor Aeternus defined infallibly, and what Cardinal Müller said above. But, the Cardinal is no dummy as to suggest ex cathedra statements can be disregarded. This suggests, to me at least, a hidden, unstated and inescapable implication in the Cardinal’s statement, as well as being an indication of how he and other Cardinals are now privately viewing Pope Francis–though this is speculative.”

“There is only one way, in logic at least, for a Catholic to accept Vatican I on papal infallibility but reject a heretical declaration that seemingly meets the formal conditions of being ex cathedra.
Given that a true pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching an error ex cathedra, it follows that if a man, seemingly “pope,” were to teach something which denies or conflicts with a known truth of the Catholic Faith it must be either (1) the man thought to be “pope” was never a true pope to begin with, or (2) the man thought to be “pope” had, at some point in the past, alreadyfallen through heresy or apostasy from the Petrine office. Those are the logical implications as I see them. Whether these are intended by the Cardinal or not with respect to Francis, in such a hypothetical scenario as he outlined, I cannot say.”

“If this a fair analysis, it may suggest the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis. If nothing else, it certainly is a shot across the bow of Pope Francis. It does suggest, along with other statements from the likes of Cardinal Brandmuller, that some in the “resistance” are reaching the point where they can bend no more. So, after so many years, we may be reaching a decisive moment.”
[https://romalocutaest.com/2019/07/27/when-is-a-pope-not-a-pope/]

If “the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis,” it seemed proper to go over how and why Francis might be a antipope or a heretical pope. 

We will start with why he may be a antipope:

Bishop Rene Gracida  and others have convincingly demonstrated that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals. If, after the investigation, Francis is found to be a antipope then a new pope would have to be elected after Benedict XVI’s resignation is investigated to see if his resignation was valid. If Benedict’s resignation was invalid then he would either have to resign validly or remain pope until his death.

Getting back to the topic of violation of “papal election procedures,” renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”:

“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).” 

“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

“Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.” 
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt] 

Next, why might Francis be a heretical pope:

As Muller asserted “No… Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. [He] would stand in contradiction [of] the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid.” 

In other words, if Francis taught heresy that contradicted Church defined doctrine he would be a antipope or a heretical pope. A antipope and, apparently in
O’Reilly‘s view a heretical pope, when he speaks “ex cathedra” can speak what is “invalid” because the false pope’s papacy is invalid. Muller wrote:

“The Magisterium of the Pope and of the bishops has no authority over the substance of the Sacraments (Trent, Decree on Communion under both species, DH 1728; Sacrosanctum Concilium 21). Therefore, no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid. Independent of this, there is the equality of all baptized in the life of Grace, and in the vocation to all ecclesial offices and functions for which exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself is not necessary.” (On the Synodal Process in Germany and the Synod for the Amazon by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, text posted by LifeSiteNew, 7/26/2019)
[https://romalocutaest.com/2019/07/27/when-is-a-pope-not-a-pope/]

Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

The renowned scholar Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who was one of the top experts in modern times of the subjects of papal validity and heretical popes gave a brief overview of his authority on this matters:

“In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification ‘theologically certain’ for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study ‘written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .’”
[https://www.scribd.com/document/374434852/Arnaldo-Vidigal-Xavier-Da-Silveira-Replies-to-Fr-Gleize-on-Heretical-Pope]

Here is what de Silveira says in his book “Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes (Page 176)” on the subject of heretical popes:

“Conclusion 

“Resuming: We believe that a careful examination of the question of a Pope heretic, with the 
theological elements of which we dispose today, permits one to conclude that an eventual Pope heretic would lose his charge in the moment in which his heresy became ‘notorious and publicly divulged’.”

“And we think that this sentence is not only intrinsically probable , but certain , since the reasons 
allegeable in its defense appear to us as absolutely cogent. Besides, in the works which we have 
consulted, we have not found any argument which persuaded us of the opposite. “

“(1 ) The second opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine – See pp. 1 56 ft. 

(2) The first subdivision proposed by us to the fifth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine – See p. 170. 

(3) The second subdivision which we proposed to the fifth opinion – See p. 170. 

(4) The third subdivision which we proposed on the fifth opinion. – See p. 1 70. 

(5) The fourth opinion referred by Saint Robert Bellarmine . – See pp. 161 ff. 

(6) We transcribe that long argumentation on pp. 1 64 ff. – See also note 2 of p. 1 64. 

(7) One ought not to see shades of conciliarism in the principle that ecclesiastical organisms, as the Council, can omit a pronouncement declaring the eventual cessation of functions of a Pope heretic, as long as these organisms do not claim for themselves any right other than that enjoyed by any one of the faithful. For motives of mere convenience or courtesy, it could behoove these organisms to make such a declaration, in the first place; but this priority would not constitute for them a right of their own, or even less exclusive.” [https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

Finally, Dr. John R. T. Lamont, philosopher and theologian, explains the procedures of how Francis’s papacy could cease if he is declared a heretical pope by the Church: 

“Some… argue that the dubia and other criticisms of Amoris Laetitia that have been made already suffice as warnings to Pope Francis, and hence that he can now be judged to be guilty of the canonical crime of heresy…”

But for juridical purposes – especially for the very serious purpose of judging a Pope to be a heretic – they do not suffice. The evidence needed for a juridical judgment of such gravity has to take a form that is entirely clear and beyond dispute. A formal warning from a number of members of the College of Cardinals that is then disregarded by the Pope would constitute such evidence.”

“The possibility of a Pope being canonically guilty of heresy has long been admitted in the Church. It is acknowledged in the Decretals of Gratian There is no dispute among Catholic theologians on this point – even among theologians like Bellarmine who do not think that a Pope is in fact capable of being a heretic…”

“It is to be hoped that the correction of Pope Francis does not have to proceed this far, and that he will either reject the heresies he has announced or resign his office…”

“Removing him from office against his will would require the election of a new Pope, and would probably leave the Church with Francis as an anti-Pope contesting the authority of the new Pope. If Francis refuses to renounce either his heresy or his office, however, this situation will just have to be faced.”

To read the whole article click below:

[http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/12/article-considerations-on-dubia-of-four.html?m=1]

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

JULY 29, 2019

Correcting the Synods of Surprises

JOSHUA HREN

CRISIS MAGAZINE

During the heady days of Vatican II, while spirited disputes over the schema raged on, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre proposed that the governing structure of the episcopal conferences undergirding the Council was “a new kind of collectivism invading the Church.”

Lefebvre wasn’t fearmongering when he told the missionary-journalist Fr. Ralph Wiltgen that a handful of bishops in a “national episcopal conference will have more influence than the rest and will take over leadership.” Fr. Wiltgen felt the archbishop could speak authoritatively on the question of national episcopal conferences, given that he’d founded a number of them himself (four, to be exact: in Madagascar, Congo-Brazzaville, Cameroun, and French West Africa).

The sort of collectivism Lefebvre warned against had a peculiar character. Coteries of bishops from various nations would speak on behalf of all bishops of those nations. If an episcopal conference were organized along national lines, Lefebvre worried, the teaching and pastoral authority of individual bishops could be undermined if they found themselves at odds with a flawed joint statement authored and promulgated by the national episcopal conference. The objecting bishops, whatever their numbers, would likely remain silent so as not to sow confusion for the laity and clergy in their charge. If they contradicted the conference’s statement, the faithful mightn’t know “whether to follow their own bishop or the conference.”

Many (if not most) Catholics fear that this recent flurry of synods may pave the way for just this “collectivism invading the Church.”

Certain key structures governing the Second Vatican Council’s national episcopal conferences and synods are analogous. In fact, in its 2018 document “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church,” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith indicated that the terms synod and council are nearly interchangeable. However, whereas the process of the Second Vatican Council included a Coordinating Commission, to which bishops at odds with the propositions of episcopal or other “collectivist” propositions could appeal, the Synod has no such provision. This is gravely disturbing. Synods are by their nature supposedly concerned with parts of the whole(the family, youth, Amazonians, etc.), and yet each of the recent synods has attempted or effected radical particular changes pertaining to the whole – changes that will be felt throughout the universal Church.

As a solution to the problem of episcopal conferences, Archbishop Lefebvre recommended structures based “on international lines, by schools of thought and special tendencies.” That way, the bishops’ thinking would become evident. “For it is the bishops, not the nations, that make up the Council.”

Eventually, an International Group of Fathers (Coetus Internationalis Patrum) emerged which “was depicted as the epitome of conservativism.” For a time, in accord with Lefebvre’s analysis of episcopal dynamics, “no conservative cardinal bold enough could be found to give the organization needed backing,” but eventually Cardinal Santos of Manilla agreed to represent Coetus Internationalis Patrum in the College of Cardinals. The purpose of these International Fathers’ meetings was to “study the schemas of the Council – with the aid of theologians – in the light of the traditional doctrine of the Church and according to the teaching of Sovereign Pontiffs.”

In Wiltgen’s The Rhine Flows into the Tiber we read that the progressives’ so-called European Alliance was startled by the influence of the International Group of Fathers. Though the liberals slandered these churchmen as “archconservatives” who were “working covertly against the aims of the Council,” they could not but countenance the Patrum’s exacting criticisms. A young Father Joseph Ratzinger admitted over dinner that “the liberals” – and he then counted himself in their number – “had thought they would have a free hand at the Council after obtaining the majority in the Council commissions.” But the promised aggiornamento was meeting resistance in the Council hall and thus the liberals would need to take the International Group of Fathers’ careful and substantive criticisms into consideration as they revised their working documents, their schemas.

℘  ℘  ℘

An extraordinarily qualified good, then, has come from the synods Pope Francis has fostered: what the bishops think has become evident, and the liberal alliances have become plain. As we read the Amazon Synods’ instrumentum laboris, it becomes painfully clear that the Church is in dire need of a new kind of Coetus Internationalis Patrum. Although these Patrum were often ignored by the more powerful (and more liberal) Council Fathers, they were able to eliminate insidious errors.

The Amazon Synod should not be conceived as a “regional” Synod meant to advance the theologies of “local” Amazonian Catholics, or even of “indigenous” Amazonian peoples. Rather, the Synod will show us just how many powerful churchmen hold to the erroneous anthropologies and theologies articulated in the instrumentum. The latter insists, for instance, that Amazonians possess an “ancestral wisdom, a living reservoir of spirituality and native culture” so that “the native people of the Amazon have much to teach us.” Still more: “The new paths of evangelization must be constructed in dialogue with these ancestral wisdoms in which the seeds of the Word are manifested.”

If we follow the Amazonians, the instrumentum promises, we will better grasp “the transmission of the ancestral experience of cosmologies, of spiritualities and theologies of the indigenous peoples, in the care of our Common Home.” As indicated by Julio Loredo, an expert in Amazonian liberation theology, the Synod is staffed and prepared by a “well-organized network of ‘indigenist’ associations and movements” whose mentors are mainstays of the liberation theology movement – which, in recent years, has “evolved” its commitments toward an “integral ecology.”

Chilean journalist José Antonio Ureta explains how, “After the collapse of the USSR and the failure of ‘real socialism,’ the advocates of Liberation Theology… attributed the historic role of revolutionary force to indigenous peoples and to nature.” The number and placement of such men will likely make it indisputably clear that the Church is in a state of radical disunity, and that that a Church organized around “synodality” will heat our already-extant divisions into open schism.

After the bishops’ thoughts become evident through the synod, this evidence ends up being executed through weighty Church documents – exhortations and encyclicals. The solution, though, is not to better protect “minority bishops.” As Archbishop Lefebvre indicated, it only takes “three, four, or five bishops” united together to exercise undue influence over an episcopal conference and “take over leadership.”

℘  ℘  ℘

“Synodality,” too, only seems to be a more parliamentary or democratic manner of governing the Church: one that subjects doctrine to the majority’s tyranny, which is precisely what troubled Archbishop Lefebvre.

As George Weigel has observed, though the 2014 and 2015, synods were designed to address daunting crises facing marriage and family the world over. “They became the occasion for powerful churchmen to try to deconstruct Catholic moral theology and sacramental discipline, according to the tried-and-failed theologies and pastoral practices of the 1970s,” Weigel argues. The controversial Synods on the Family climaxed in Amoris Laetitia, an apostolic exhortation whose ambiguities and errors have already achieved incalculable damage to doctrinal clarity concerning everything from reception of Holy Communion to the relation between nature and grace.

The enclave of elite bishops engineering and cheering the Amazon Synod is already becoming clear. To cite just a few: Bishop Erwin Kräutler, master author of the Amazon Synod’s instrumentum laboris, has argued in favor of female ordination over and against Pope John Paul II’s 1994 document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which restated absolutely the impossibility of female ordination. Kräutler insists that Ordinatio “is not a doctrine de fide.”

Bishop Fritz Lobinger, praised by Pope Francis and his synodal-collaborator Kräutler, has provided the theological “justification” for “ordained elders.” He posits that the words of Our Lord recalled in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, “Do this in memory of me,” are “more appropriate” coming from the mouths of married elders. Married elders, and not “outside priests,” are best able to utter words that beckon us to “remember” that Jesus came to promote “unity.” But Germany’s Bishop Franz-Josef Overback makes it clear that the Synod is more likely to aim at discontinuity: “[The synod] will bring the Church to a point of no return,” after which “nothing will be as it was.”

Now, when viewed from a certain angle, Bishop Overback’s comment would seem to despair over the divinely-founded nature of the Church. But to say that, in a half century, much of the Church will be superficially unrecognizable: that’s fully in keeping with traditional believe in the permissive will of God, who is right now allowing the bishops to make their thoughts evident.

As we witness the humanness of the Church more fully, we – the lay faithful of good will – await a new kind of Coetus Internationalis Patrum that study the epiphanic confusions of the Amazon Synod “in the light of the traditional doctrine of the Church and according to the teaching of Sovereign Pontiffs.” In terms of juridical process, an alliance of such Paters couldn’t eradicate the most miserable errors of the instrumentum laboris. These remain stuck in the document’s rotational, sensational ecosystem, never to be instrumentalized in the universal Church. But the Fathers would make articulate, intelligible, and visible the traditional thought of the Church – and, in consequence, make evident the revolutionary character of the particular errors of these Synods of Surprises. May God make His Thought evident also.

Tagged as Amazon Synod (2019), Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Erwin Kräutler,Bishop Franz-Josef Overback, Bishop Fritz Lobinger, Coetus Internationalis Patrum,SSPX, women priests35

By Joshua Hren

Joshua Hren, Ph.D., is Co-Founder and Assistant Director of the Honors College at Belmont Abbey, teaching and writing at the intersections of political philosophy and literature and Christianity and culture. For many years he served as Managing Editor of Dappled Things: A Quarterly of Ideas, Art, and Faith, and as editor-in-chief of Wiseblood Books. Joshua has published poems in First Things, Commonweal and Presence; journalistic pieces in Crisis, Touchstone, and America; numerous scholarly articles in such venues as LOGOS: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture; and short stories, most recently “Up and Down and Up Again” in Windhover. His first collection of short stories, This Our Exile, was published through Angelico Press in January 2018. It received an Honorable Mention in the 2018 Christianity and Literature Book of the Year Award.

JULY 29, 2019

An Immodest Proposal

FR. GEORGE W. RUTLER

CRISIS MAGAZINE

A fad for picturesque ruins grew luxuriantly in the Romantic Revival from the end of the eighteenth century to about the mid-nineteenth, and where there were no real ruins, “follies” recreated them. Real ruins remain in a kaleidoscope of times and climes: Machu Picchu in Peru, Ayutthaya in Thailand, Stonehenge in England, Luxor in Egypt and Baalbek in Lebanon.  Some were simply left unfinished out of fear of curses, as with the Ta Keo temple in Cambodia, and the Mingun Pahtodawgyi (which would have been a 500-foot-tall pagoda) in present-day Mayanmar. Work on the Hassan Tower in Morocco, begun in 1195, stopped at the death of the sultan Yacoub al Mansur.

Rather more prosaically, the National Monument of Scotland came to be called “Scotland’s Shame” in the nineteenth century because money ran out. Bara Kaman, the mausoleum of Ali Adil Shaha II, was left unfinished to prevent it from overshadowing Gom Gobaz, the mausoleum of the Sultan of Bijapur. Tourists ogle the walls of Pompeii submerged by a volcano. A young Oxonian won the Newdigate Prize for his poem about Petra in Jordan: the “rose-red city half as old as time.” It decayed only because it had been abandoned, but nearly a million tourists go there each year now.

That young poet John William Burgon wrote those lines in the same year that Newman became a Catholic. They were parodied in doggerel about port, invoking Newman’s 90-year-old tutor Thomas Short: “That rose-red liquor, half as old as Short.” But as ruins go, if not one stone is left upon another even in Jerusalem, their very existence cries out in ways that men do not, or even will not do.

℘  ℘  ℘

By a providence that nervous chroniclers call “luck,” the fire in Paris did not ruin the cathedral of Notre Dame. Most of its major parts remain, however fragile at the moment. Even the north rose window glows as the gift of St. Louis IX, who commissioned it in 1260. Its eighty-eight images, or “medallions,” are a mathematical canticle to eternity.

His great-grandfather, Louis VII, provided one of the great scenes of medieval romance when he laid the cornerstone in 1163 along with Pope Alexander III. The king had supported the pope during a papal schism, and both were men of high energy and expansive vision. The pope devoted himself to strengthening the churches in Finland, Hungary, Portugal, Scotland and Ireland. Likewise, King Louis VII consolidated his own duchies, visited Hungary, and went on to the Holy Land, having nearly been killed by Turks outside Laodicea. That familiar name is a constant reminder that Laodicean mediocrity, a spiritual affliction a thousand years before King Louis and Pope Alexander, and one which still haunts and harrows episcopates in our own day (Rev. 3:15-16).

A year after the pope and the king laid the cornerstone, they welcomed the exiled Thomas Becket. His former mentor and later persecutor, Henry II, had become King of England as well as Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and Count of Anjou.  Seven years after the construction began on the cathedral, Becket would be martyred. Things were more complicated by the fact that Henry had married the first wife of Louis, the powerful Eleanor, 18 years earlier, immediately upon the annulment of her marriage to Louis.

Pope Alexander quickly canonized Becket in 1174 and showed his magnanimity by forgiving Henry after due penance with a sorrow not altogether feigned, and creating him Lord of Ireland. The pope was acting upon the controversial bull Laudabiliter of his predecessor Adrian IV. But Henry also responded to an appeal for protection from the King of Leinster, Diarmait Mac Murchada, against the threats of the High King Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair.

St. Malachy, archbishop of Armagh had tried his best to revive the Faith after it had fallen into desuetude in the melancholy and chaotic centuries after Palladius and Patrick, the sacraments largely neglected or abandoned. He restored the Latin liturgy and chants where Gaelic had crept in, and required the blessing of marriages. Passing through France on return from his second trip to Rome in 1148, St. Malachy died in Clairvaux in the arms of St. Bernard, having told him that the Gaels were “Christian in name, in fact pagans.”

Pope Alexander envisioned the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland as an evangelistic obligation, not only to the Irish but also to the Vikings of Dublin. Though King of England, the Plantagenet Henry II spoke only French as did most of his army. From then on in France, contesting claims to rule were fraught with extravagant gestures: in 1431, shortly after  Charles VII was crowned as King of France at Rheims with St. Joan of Arc in attendance (accompanied by Scottish bagpipes), Henry VI, was crowned as King of France in Paris in Notre Dame at the age of 10: two years after he was crowned King of England in Westminster Abbey, his short legs dangling from the throne that is still used.

℘  ℘  ℘

The desecration of Notre Dame in 1548 by Huguenots was matched only by the enormities of the French Revolution. The turning tides of belief and unbelief have not affected a common sense that the cathedral is like a heart of the nation, in stark contrast to the frigidity of the Pantheon. While it has been a focus for saints, there are others whose attitude is more tentative, like that of Winston Churchill, who did not pretend to mysticism and explained that he supported his Church of England like a flying buttress: from without.

At the liberation of Paris in August of 1944, a very mixed throng of people instinctively marched to the cathedral for a chanting of the Te Deum led by Charles De Gaulle: a difficult man but a true Catholic. He banned Emmanuel Cardinal Suhard from attending, because that archbishop of Paris, though suspect by the Nazis, seemed in his accommodation of the Vichy government to have been too Laodicean for the general.

Malcolm Muggeridge witnessed the scene as a British intelligence officer, when a gunshot rang from one of the arches. “The effect was fantastic. The huge congregation who had all been standing suddenly fell flat on their faces… There was a single exception; one solitary figure, like a lonely giant. It was, of course, de Gaulle. Thenceforth, that was how I always saw him – towering and alone; the rest, prostrate.”

The buttresses and walls of Notre Dame remain, though its roof is gone.  Outrageous proposals for modernizing it by “starchitects,” some of whom are of the dystopian mentality that imposed upon Paris the cultural incubus of La Defense in the department of Hauts-de-Seine, the Centre Pompidou and, one dare say, the Louvre Pyramid. They bring to mind part of Hilaire Belloc’s lapidary reverie in the solitude of the Sahara while gazing upon the ruins of Timgad:

The Barbarian hopes – and that is the mark of him, that he can have his cake and eat it too. He will consume what civilization has slowly produced after generations of selection and effort, but he will not be at pains to replace such goods, nor indeed has he a comprehension of the virtue that has brought them into being. Discipline seems to him irrational, on which account he is ever marveling that civilization should have offended him with priests and soldiers… In a word, the Barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this, that he cannot make: that he can befog and destroy but that he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.

The French Senate has passed a bill requiring that the cathedral be restored to its “last known visual state.” This will include replicating the spire of the 30-year-old Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. If they stick to that commitment it will be a triumph. It was only by the fortune of circumstance that the cathedral was not destroyed by Renaissance and Baroque snobs who thought it was an eyesore. The style known as francigenum opusbecame known as “gothic” only in the 1530s, when Giorgio Vasari mocked it for falling short of classical symmetry.

But an instinct inseparable from a desire to soar and shine draws all sorts to what began in the twelfth century, when the Abbé Suger tutored that young man who planned on an ecclesiastical vocation and was surprised to find himself titled Louis VII upon the death of his elder brother, Philippe. Queen Eleanor complained that he was “monkish.”

That “new style” is so organic that the restorers Jean-Baptiste Lassus and Viollet-le-Duc, not without their detractors, could add their own touches – like the transept fleche with its crocks and statues, and the capricious gargoyles or chimera, which were added between 1843 and 1864 – all in the same spirit and free of pastiche.

℘  ℘  ℘

To everyone’s recollections of the cathedral, I can add my own, for in that cathedral I had one of two experiences of my life that affected me definitively. The other I shall leave for another time, but I pay more attention now than I did in the summer of 1967, when I entered the cathedral for the first time as a student.

I was still an Anglican, and unfamiliar with the protocols of lighting votive candles, so I imitated how others did it before the 14^th century statue of the Virgin of Paris. I was moved by more than a tourist’s curiosity, and perhaps I sensed something other than the aesthetic of the statue’s high gothic contrapposto. Anyway, 16 years later back in Paris, I was a Catholic in Holy Orders and was able to attend Easter Vespers, but had to stand by the west doors because of the crowd. A man, who I assumed was some sort of usher, approached me and led me near to the altar and gave me the one vacant chair, which was directly beneath the Virgin of Paris. For a second time, I lit a candle.

Since so many have offered unsolicited opinions about the future of the cathedral, I would make an immodest proposal. For various unrecorded reasons, the cathedral was never finished, for surely Suger and Louis and Alexander envisioned spires that would be the prototypes of Chartres and Cologne and scores of others. After 1250, the west towers were left as they are now.

Our Lord gave his counsel with which even the Senate of France would agree: “For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?” Two spires would probably cost much less than a ballistic missile. Those who would object to the cost are probably the intractable types whose citation of Scripture is confined unwittingly to the tragic apostle (vid. Matt. 26:9; John 12:5). Viollet-le-Duc actually did a sketch for such towers, even taking into account the subtle difference in their sizes, the north being slightly larger.

Predictably, there will be those who are so accustomed to the unfinished condition they prefer it that way. The sentiment reminds me of a woman at the Academy of Music in the 1970s when Eugene Ormandy received an ovation as he made his first appearance after hip replacement surgery. She muttered to me: “He looked more poetic with his limp.” Admittedly, in his Projet de restauration of 1843, Viollet-le-Duc decides against building the western spires because that “would be remarkable, but would no longer be Notre-Dame de Paris.”

Yet that may have been the influence of the project’s co-author, Lessus. Exactly twenty years later, he writes in the first volume of Entretiens sur l’architecture: “The work is not yet finished – the two towers should be terminated by two spires to complete and explain the carefully studied lines of the lower structure.”

Well, one can indulge a little wishful thinking, and what is most important is the restoration of what was lost. But to realize what was meant to be in the first place, would confirm the sacred words of the prophet at the time of the Second Temple:

Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? And how do you see it now? In comparison with it, is this not in your eyes as nothing? … “The silver isMine, and the gold is Mine,” says the Lord of hosts. “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the former,” says the Lord of hosts. “And in this place I will give peace…”

(Photo credit: Shutterstock)40

By Fr. George W. Rutler

Fr. George W. Rutler is pastor of St. Michael’s church in New York City. He is the author of many books including Principalities and Powers: Spiritual Combat 1942-1943 (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press) and Hints of Heaven (Sophia Institute Press). His latest books are He Spoke To Us (Ignatius, 2016); The Stories of Hymns (EWTN Publishing, 2017); and Calm in Chaos (Ignatius, 2018).

SEPTEMBER 19, 2018

The Great Emergency

FR. GEORGE W. RUTLER

That every five hundred years the Church passes through a crisis is not a novel insight. It may be something of a contrived schematic, since there have been other crises as well, but each of those periods of crisis has influenced the Church to an extraordinary and radical degree: The Fall of the Roman Empire, the Great East-West Schism, and the Protestant Revolt.

These days there seems to be a “perfect storm” of events which add up to a fourth crisis, and the faithful must trust that “through toil and tribulation” the purging of corrupt elements will result in a stronger Catholic witness. Recently, Pope Francis told the press: “I will not say a word” referring to some of the most serious allegations of decadence in the Church, and he has long declined to respond to the dubia of four cardinals on the spiritual economy of marriage. Some have thought that such reticence is inconsistent with his dogmatic outspokenness on ambiguous matters such as climate change and capital punishment. Last New Year’s Day, he said: “I would once again like to raise my voice” about immigration, and on Palm Sunday he told young people: “You have it in you to shout” even if “older people and leaders, very often corrupt, keep quiet.” This is why there was an eagerness to hear him when in the course of these most tumultuous months, on the fourth day of World Prayer for the Care of Creation, he finally spoke—but it turned out to be a warning about plastic debris in the world’s waters.

On September 1, 2018, this successor of Gregory I, who saw Latin civilization crumbling, and Leo IX, who grieved at the loss of Constantinople, and Pius V, who pitied souls lost in the heretical northern lands, implored and lamented: “We cannot allow our seas and oceans to be littered by endless fields of floating plastic. Here, too, our active commitment is needed to confront this emergency.” The struggle against plastic litter must be fought “as if everything depended on us.”

It was a sobering moment for all who care for what the Holy Father called “the great waters and all they contain.” The poignancy of such pastoral solicitude inevitably brings to mind the historic document of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People in 2007 which was entitled: “Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road.” It marked precisely the one thousandth anniversary of the no less important peace treaty with the Vikings signed by King Aethelred the Unready. The world will long remember this pontifical document’s opening line: “Moving from place to place, and transporting goods using different means, have characterized human behavior since the beginning of history.” The guidelines also pointed out (n. 21) that “A vehicle is a means of transport…” and observed (n. 23), “Sometimes the prohibitions imposed by road signs may be perceived as restrictions on freedom.” Drawing on generations of pastoral wisdom, the instruction (n. 24) warned: “The fact that a driver’s personality is different from that of a pedestrian’s, should be taken into account” (n. 24) and cautioned against “rude gestures” (n. 27). From their own cultural experiences as Italians, the president of the Council, Renato Cardinal Martino, and the Council’s secretary, Agostino Marchetto, titular archbishop of Astigi, noted that “Cars tend to bring out the ‘primitive side’ of human beings, thereby producing rather unpleasant results” (n. 29).

More than a decade later, there is yet to be realized the Pontifical Council’s dream of “periodic celebrations of liturgies at major road points” (n 82). One hopes that the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation will produce more tangible results. There are cynics who would try to dismiss the plastic pollution emergency as though it were “not a massive, massive crisis.” However, the issue will not go away. You might say that the problem has been with us since plastic first appeared in 1284, as a naturally made compound of tortoise shell and horn. And, of course, 1284 was the year that the Lüneborg manuscript first recorded the tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, whom the former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, in a lecture in Villanova University in 2013, used as a metaphor for the charism of Pope Francis. He was unaware that 130 children were never seen again after the Piper led them into a cave.

The first man-made plastic, derived from cellulose, was exhibited at the Great International Exhibition in London in 1862, being the invention of Alexander Parkes. As a specimen of accidental synchronicity, it happened that during the installation of that marvel, the British Minister to Rome, Lord Odo Russell, assured an anxious Pope Pius IX that Queen Victoria would grant him asylum in England should he have to flee the Eternal City.

In the 1967 film The Graduate, Mr. McGuire tells Benjamin: “Plastics. There’s a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?” That optimism, born of naïveté about Fallen Man’s abuse the oceans, is mocked by today’s emergency. Condemning the privatization of water resources, Pope Francis implied that a large burden of fault is to be blamed on Western capitalists. However, an awkward fact looms: a 2017 report of the “Ocean Conservancy” indicates that more plastic is dumped into the oceans by China, along with Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, than by the entire rest of the world. Indeed, ninety per cent of all plastic in the seas and oceans are carried there by rivers in India, Africa, and mostly China. Nonetheless, the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Science, Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, has said: “Right now, those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese.” In China “the economy does not dominate politics, as in the United States” where President Trump is “manipulated” by global industrialists. Shortly before the Chinese government bulldozed yet another church and banned crucifixes, Sorondo declared that China was implementing Pope Francis’s encyclical letter Laudato Si better than many countries and “is assuming a moral leadership that others have abandoned.”

Plastic is not mentioned in Sacred Scripture, not even in the New American Bible. But we may safely assume that Jesus would have had difficulty walking on water if it had been filled with plastic trash. Saint Peter found a gold coin in the mouth of a fish but today he might very well find only a piece of styrofoam. When our Lord fed the five thousand and the four thousand, the leftovers filled twelve and seven kphinoi, or wicker baskets, respectively. These were huge crowds, especially if you add the number of women and children, and more so if 2+2 = 5. But the point is: these baskets were biodegradable, and it would never have occurred to the Master to use plastic trash bags even if such had existed. Eventually the baskets would have decayed and returned to the soil from whence they came. And that is how it should be. Even the parables can be updated for the present emergency: the Good Ecologist, having recycled ninety-nine plastic bottles, still goes out in search of the one polyurethane bottle that is lost.

On the other hand, our Lord does seem to have had a different concept of moral emergencies, to wit: “Hear me, all of you, and understand. Nothing that enters a man from outside can defile him; but the things that come out from within are what defile. From within men, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils come from within and they defile” (Mark 7: 15, 20-23). But for many facing the emergency of plastic refuse, that may be a matter for another day.

(Photo credit: Pope Francis speaks about the environment at the UN, September 25, 2015; Alan Holdren / CNA)

Tagged as Bishop Sorondo, Catholic Church (China), Environmentalism, Laudato Si’,pollution, Pope Francis, secular humanism549

By Fr. George W. Rutler

Fr. George W. Rutler is pastor of St. Michael’s church in New York City. He is the author of many books including Principalities and Powers: Spiritual Combat 1942-1943 (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press) and Hints of Heaven (Sophia Institute Press). His latest books are He Spoke To Us (Ignatius, 2016); The Stories of Hymns (EWTN Publishing, 2017); and Calm in Chaos (Ignatius, 2018).

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly Column July 28, 2019

Toddlers try to get their way by throwing tantrums, but they are not the only ones. In “An Open Letter on Translating,” an heresiarch in 1530 justified altering the Letter of Saint James: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so . . . Sic volo, sic jubeo.” (I want it; I command.)   This solipsism was updated in a 1966 book turned into a 1972 film about a twenty-year-old named Roy who demonstrated his desire to be his sister Wendy by dressing in her clothes. The title was: “I Want What I Want.”    What one wants may not be obtainable. For the adult still psychologically in diapers, the only recourse is to become flushed and scream at anyone who sticks to reality. That was the response of some when the Holy See’s Congregation for Catholic Education published on June 10 a document that said the denial of the natural duality of the sexes creates the idea of the human person as an abstraction “who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. ” This is what Pope Francis, who has stressed the need to be charitable to people misled by such mental disorders, in 2016 called a “utopia of the neutral.” A utopia is nowhere. In the same year, the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly explained, “The claim that it is possible to change one’s sex, or that sexual identity is fluid, contradicts scientific evidence, reason, the nature of the human person, and key tenets of the Catholic faith.” It is Gnostic dualism.     The term “gender” has commonly come to classify sex. So now we have an innovative vocabulary: transgendered, gender dysphoric, non-binary, and so forth. But neologisms fly in the face of the conclusion of Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Johns Hopkins Hospital psychiatrist, that “gender reassignment” is “biologically impossible.” In 1975 the American Psychological Association, acting politically with no justifying science, declared that certain aberrancies are not pathological. Start with a lie and you can logically conclude with a lie. The APA’s “Non-Monogamy Task Force” now has endorsed polygamy and promiscuity, called “relationship anarchy.” Only about 6/10 of one percent of humans consider themselves “transgendered,” although about 3% of malleable adolescents now identify as such, as the result of pedagogical propaganda. This is a sophisticated form of child abuse. Among all those who have had “reassignment surgery,” the suicide rate is twenty times higher than average.    Schoolchildren once knew the rhyme about the grand old Duke of York’s ten thousand men: “He marched them up to the top of the hill, /And he marched them down again. / When they were up, they were up, /And when they were down, they were down, /And when they were only halfway up, /They were neither up nor down.” That is not how armies should work, and that is not how male and female created in God’s image can ever work.