Catechism on Modernism : Pope St. Pius X (Download)

Discussion in 'Basic Catechism' started by Admin, Jan 13, 2017.

  1. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member

    [​IMG]

    A Condemnation of the Errors of Modernism according to the
    "Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis", of his Holiness, Pius X., 1907


    [​IMG]


    "This Catechism reproduces, in its entirety and in the exact order of its ideas, the Encyclical of our Holy Father the Pope On the Doctrines of the Modernists. The Text used is that of the Official Translation published with authority. The divisions and subdivisions are those that are found in the French version issued by the Vatican Press."

    Listed below are excerpts from this timely work of Pope St. Pius X.:Download the book, "Catechism on Modernism"

    Q. How can one, in one word, define Modernism?

    A. 'Now, with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis* of all the heresies.'--Page 94


    Q. Why do you define Modernism to be the rendezvous of all the heresies?

    A. 'Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the Faith, and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done.'--Page 94


    Q. Is it enough to affirm that, by their multiplied errors, the Modernists would destroy the Catholic religion?

    A. 'Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion.'--Page 94 - 95


    Q. What are the stages in this descent of the human mind towards the negation of all religion?

    A. 'The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; Atheism will make the next.'--Page 100


    Q. Are the Modernists zealous to enlist new recruits?

    A. 'What efforts do they not make to win new recruits!'


    Q. What are their principal means of conquest?

    A. 'They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and Universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. In sermons from the pulpit they disseminate their doctrines, although possibly in utterances which are veiled. In congresses they express their teachings more openly. In their social gatherings they introduce them and commend them to others. Under their own names and under pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms, to trap the incautious reader into believing in a multitude of Modernist writers. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried in act, speech, and writing.'--Page 111


    Q. How may their (Modernist) doctrines be described?

    A. Methods and doctrines replete with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the making of Catholics but for the seduction of those who are Catholics into heresy ; and tending to the utter subversion of all religion.--Page 90


    Q. What more serious reforms do the Modernists call for in the government of the Church?

    A. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience, which now wholly tends towards democracy. A share in ecclesiastical government should, therefore, be given to the lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity, and authority, which is too much concentrated, should be decentralized.'--Page 92



    To download the entire book, click on the link below.




    Source
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
    Rose likes this.
  2. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member



    The True Notion of Sacred Tradition


    Many people have asked me: Who is this Father Hesse? Well Fr. Hesse was born in Vienna Austria 1953 and Fr. Hesse went to Rome in 1976 to study for the priesthood. In those days I still believed that it was possible to live within the conciliar Church, or as John Paul II calls it - the Church of the New Advent. I found out to the contrary later. I was ordained in St. Peter's Basilica , 21st November, 1981 which accounts for the violet buttons and violet sash in my dress. I am not a Monseigneur but in 1635 the good Pope Urban VIII Barberini gave the privilege to the Basilica of St. Peter's in Rome that whosoever was ordained in that same Basilica enjoyed all the privileges of a Monseigneur except the title. I thank Urban VIII for that. In 1991 I went back to Vienna Austria after fifteen years in Rome. I was indeed private secretary to Cardinal Stickler between 1986 and 1988. In 1988 we both were retired. He because of age, me because of orthodoxy. Well, here I am and I returned to the true authentic Catholic Church around the year 1991 when I decided to forget modernisms and to fight them for the rest of my life.

    Before I start the speech today I want to update you on some of the newest jokes which you can see on the billboards of Protestant churches. 'Kay Mart is not the only Saving Place'. And here's another one: 'I was goin' to waste, Jesus recycled me'. (Laughter) Isn't that good?

    Before I start to talk on Tradition I will have to give you a few definitions and distinctions. I notice that most of the misunderstandings today are a result of lacking distinctions and definitions. Here is, first of all, four definitions. I was asked already today what does it mean schism. S C H I S M or in the military that is Sierra Charlie Hotel India Sierra Mike.

    Schism means that you separate yourself from the unity of the church. There is material and formal schism which is another distinction I will make very soon. You can separate yourself from the church from the inside

    • You reject the Catholic church as such. That is material schism.
    • Or you reject the authority of the holy Father as such. That is Schism.

    If you do it right out in the open then it is formal schism and you are automatically excommunicated. Now in my speech today, I am going to criticise the Pope and I will reject some of his teachings. But I do not reject his teaching authority. As long as he is Pope he enjoys the teaching authority and he also has what you call the Imperium. He has the right to command. He is our Supreme Commander.

    The next thing is, What is heresy?
    • Heresy means you reject not the church as such but you reject one of its teachings - or many. It is absolutely sufficient to reject one single pronouncement of the Magisterium to be a heretic.
    What does it mean something is valid or licit? Sometimes I hear people complaining to me that I said that the new mass was valid, or can be valid.
    • Now validity means that something is actually taking place. When somebody in the traditional spirit says the new mass in latin. that Mass is taking place. The Sacrament is taking place. It happens. That means it is valid. But it is not licit. It is not allowed. Valid and licit are two things that most people confuse. Valid means it's taking place; l

    • Licit means it's allowed.The new Mass is definitely illicit it's against divine law and we must not accept it. But the validity is another question.
    Now the distinctions.

    Objective/Subjective. Most people confuse that. Material/Formal - they confuse that too. And they don't know what act and potency means. I will explain all of it. I have already taken one of the distinctions when talking about validity and liceity.
    • Objective/subjective See today I am pronouncing judgement on the present Pope. Do I pronounce judgement on his person? No! And whoever dares to say that I pronounce a personal judgement on the present Pope is guilty of the sin of slander. I do not judge the person of John Paul II. I have absolutely no way of looking into his interior.
    • The Church does not judge internal things. I refuse to give any speculative answer to the question - if this Pope does no better or wants to destroy the church. I am not interested. I don't care if this present Pope wants to destroy the church or if he is just naive and doesn't know what he's doing. I don't care. I am looking at results....I am also not judging the person of of Leo XIII whom I love very much. I am not judging his person. I believe he is in heaven but that is of no consequence to what we're talking about here.
    • Objective means - looking at the object, at the reality of things.
    • Subjective means looking at the subject - at the person.
    See this is the reason we are not allowed to pronounce personal judgements. We do not KNOW what is going on in the inside or in the conscience of another person. That is subjective. A judgement we are not allowed to make. But objectively we can judge facts, quotations and actions which is what I am going to do today.

    Most people get confused with material and formal [at this point there was a technical problem with the Master recording and it was here that Father Hesse explained the important distinction between formal and material heresy.

    He explained it by way of an example like this:
    • If a catholic layman, priest, theologian, bishop or even pontiff would say "In accordance with tradition and in accordance with past Papal teaching I tell you that the Protestants can be saved in their religion" this would make the person who says this a material heretic. Since he somehow believes that he is in accordance with traditional catholic teaching he is not a formal heretic but only what he says is heretical.

    • On the other hand, if a Catholic layman, Priest, theologian, Bishop or even Pontiff would say, "Contrary to what Pope Eugene IV taught at the Council of Florence I tell you Protestants can be saved in their own religion" then the person who says this would be an objective formal heretic because he is knowingly and willingly contradicting the dogmatic truths of the Catholic faith.
    Next, Father Hesse explained the distinction between act and potency. Act and potency are the two basic terms of the entire Thomistic philosophy. [And we resume the lecture with Father Hesse explaining these two terms by giving the example of a modern theologian who teaches that through Christ all men are saved.]

    [Fr. Hess resumes]...through our Lord Jesus Christ all men are saved. Is that true? Yes, it is, but not as such. You can't leave it standing the way it stands. You see? He says, all men are saved.
    • In potency - potentially they are all saved; possibly they're all saved. The probability is highly against it - but possibly. What would you think of me if I said to you right now, I am Pope. Is it true? O yes - potentially. The probability is zilch! Potentially I am Pope. So you see what I mean? When you talk about potency you have to say so. There is a USAGE in language -not just in the American heritage dictionary which, in a very good way, presents the English language in its usage in the United States. There is a usage in theological talk; in theological-speak. According to the usage of all the past centuries you have to say when something is only such in potency. See, I am in potency, I am in act a priest. I am a man, and in potency I am a natural father of children - won't happen to me, rest assured - I'll try my best (Laughter) but in potency I am also Pope. Now you would call a psychiatrist if was going to insist that I am Pope - right? He says that all men are saved he's pronouncing heresy according to the usage of language. This brings us to tradition and the duties and the rights of the Pope which I have to explain before I explain tradition.
    In the 1920's a certain French priest called Abeel Laroche said, wait and see what we are now going to face, after the modernists have been dealt with by Pius X - we are now going to face the worst of all heresies. The heresy that says the Pope can do anything. He can't. And while I explain to you what the true concept of tradition is I will also explain to you what the limits of the papal rights and duties are.

    Papal Documents
    First, before I start anything on tradition whatsoever we have to establish the authority of papal documents. I am holding here a copy of the encyclical letter Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII who says - see some people today talk about a hierarchy of truth this is not the place and the time today to explain today the real Catholic meaning of the hierarchy of truth. What they mean is there are truths that we may sacrifice in the dialogue with the Protestants. Of course, I do not have to tell you what truckloads this is, but there is a hierarchy of papal authority in the sense - when the Pope or a Council pronounce something de fide, as a dogma, it has to be accepted by every Catholic in an assent of faith. That means it is not sufficient for a Catholic to say, OK, alright I can take that. You have to give it the assent of faith that means you have to believe it. See faith is not something left to our free decision - in that case we go back to those K-Mart chapels you know. WE HAVE to accept it in faith. But when the Pope pronounces something in the ordinary, not the extraordinary, but the ordinary magisterium we have to obey. That doesn't mean we have to believe in it, but we have to obey unless we are able to contradict what the Pope says in his ordinary teaching by quoting his predecessors. NOT some theologians. Don't you ever dare to contradict Pope John Paul II quoting Father Hesse. Don't! I do not have the authority to correct a Pope. I am correcting the present Pope today and tomorrow with his predecessors and the councils. Not with theologians. Theologians do not have that authority. That is granted only to Peter. And here Pius XII says,

    Nor must it be taught that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not of itself demand consent. Since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority, for these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority of which it is true to say He who heareth you heareth me. And generally what is expounded and inculcated in encyclical letters are ready for other reasons that pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the supreme pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgement on a matter up to the time under dispute it is obvious that the matter, according to the mind and the will of the same pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion amongst theologians.​

    To explain to you what this means - when John Paul II was asked for the first time if it is possible to ordain women he said, This is not a question that is any more open to the discussion of theologians. The moment he said that, he was indeed talking according to tradition. But what happens if the present Pope contradicts the ordinary teaching of his predecessors? Very simple! There cannot be any contradiction whatsoever within the ordinary teaching of the church. So if Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos condemned ecumenism, and the present Pope, as John Vennari explained today, desires ecumenism and preaches ecumenism the present Pope is simply wrong! That's it! Period. I mean there were bad Popes before; there were heretics before. We had three heretical Popes before 1958 already. I am going to talk about that later.

    The question Dei Filius or Dei Verbum?
    That is a question that arises the moment you read a very famous document and the only short document ever coming from the present Pope the Apostolic letter of John Paul II Ecclesia Dei. The 30th June, 1988 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, against the explicit wish of the Pope, consecrated four Bishops. He did not establish a new hierarchy with this because he did not give any jurisdiction to the four Bishops. As a matter of fact he explains very well that he consecrated those four Bishops in order that they can ordain priests, because in the regular average seminary of the Church of the New Advent nobody can become a priest unless he admits to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo of Mass. The only place where you do not have to accept Vatican II or the new rite of Mass in the United States is Winona. So the day after, the Pope issued a two-page only document for the first time in his career - usually he writes a hundred pages or what. I do not have the time tonight to talk about the canonical errors in this document so I will talk about the dogmatic error. The root of this schismatic act he calls The Consecration of the Four Bishops a schismatic act. He says, this by in its nature is schismatic. In its nature it's equal to the refusal of papal authority. That is against the entire tradition of moral theology. The church has NEVER, in its history, considered an illegitimate consecration a schismatic act. (Emphasis made by Father)

    The church, has as a matter of fact, until 1949 ...and illegitimate consecration of Bishops with dispensation of the holy duties - not with excommunication. But the sin of schism, by itself, requires excommunication as a penalty. So the Pope is contradicting moral theology. He is contradicting the accepted and traditional moral theology of the Catholic church. This is why he says now the root of this schismatic act.

    The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition which, as the second Vatican council clearly taught comes from the Apostles and progresses in the Church with the Holy Spirit there is a growth inside into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience.
    I think this is one of the worse documents in Church history. He is quoting verbatim the number 8 of de verbum. Dei Verbum is the dogmatic constitution on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture of Vat. II.

    John 23rd said that Vatican II was a pastoral council; it did not want to define anything.
    Paul VI said the Vat.II council was a pastoral council and did not want to define anything.
    Now this Pope comes up and says, the doctrine of Vat. II! There IS a doctrine in Vat. II yes! Whenever Vat II quotes the old councils and former popes which happens rare enough. Whenever Vat II does that Vat. II is quoting the doctrine of the Church. But when Vat. II exposes some NEW doctrines - mind you I didn't call it new doctrines - the Pope does. When Vat. II exposes NEW doctrine Vat. II just simply doesn't have any authority whatsoever. The Pope says in No. 5b of the same document.

    b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
    Now see what I mean - material heresy. In order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition especially in points of doctrine which perhaps because they are new have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. So the Pope ADMITS that there are new doctrines in Vatican II. You will see that this is a matter of fact shows that he does not understand his own authority because Vatican I defined Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, issued by the First Vatican Council, July 18, 1870. In the fourth chapter defining the papal infallibility it says:

    For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by his revelation they might make known a new doctrine but that by His assistance they might inviolately keep and faithfully keep and faithfully expound the revelation of the Deposit of Faith delivered through the Apostles.
    That is a lousy translation. It says in the latin [.......] they have to watch over the doctrine saintly and they have to explain it faithfully. They are not allowed to explain or reveal NEW doctrines. And the present Pope is talking about the new doctrines of Vatican II. The Pope is referring to a definition of tradition that puts it in the hands of the faithful to develop tradition. Tomorrow, I can't go into this right now because tomorrow I'm going to talk about St. Pius X's famous encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis against Modernism. And I am going to explain to you in detail how the modernists think, and why it is possible that modernists can, for some perverted reason reconcile the traditional concept of tradition with the concept of tradition expounded in Vat. II. Let me, however, go back to the council of Trent. The Council of Trent said:

    And seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating have come down even down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand. Following the examples of the orthodox Fathers receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the old and the new testament seeing that one God is the author of both as also of the said traditions as well as those pertaining to faith and to morals as having been dictated either by Christ's own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.​

    THAT is the Catholic concept of tradition. And this tradition as you will see immediately in Vatican I Dei Filius is the decree, cannot change. Now Vatican I is quoting the Council of Trent. Further, this supernatural revelation according to the universal belief of the Church, declared by the Sacred Synod of Trent is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself or from the Apostles themselves by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, transmitted as it were, from hand to hand have come down even to us. You see the same words and then it says - again Vatican I in the Decree on Faith and Reason.

    For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity.​

    So we cannot perfect it - what has been delivered as of divine deposit to the spouse of Christ. In the average usage of language a deposit is a deposit. It is not ever-growing.

    To be faithfully kept and infallibly declared hence also that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.​

    This is in direct contradiction to. the definition of tradition in Dei Verbum And now, Vatican I is quoting St. Vincent of Lerins:

    Let then be intelligence science and wisdom of each and all of individuals and the whole Church in all ages and in all times increase and flourish in abundance and vigour but simply in its own proper kind that is to say in one and the same doctrine; one and the same judgement.​

    That is a lousy translation again. We have to go back to the latin I am quoting just the last paragraph of St. Vincent of Lerins. ........The important thing here is in the same sense; in the same sentence - that means judgement. Same sense - same meaning. There cannot be an improvement of meaning, or a growth of meaning. There can only be a deeper understanding in the same sense. Example: For l853 years a Catholic was not a heretic when he said that Our Lady was not Immaculately Conceived. He was in error; he was not a real heretic because there was not a defined dogma of the Church. It was part of tradition though. Now Pope Pius IX, servant of God pronounced the Immaculate Conception as a solid dogma. Did that change anything in the tradition? NO! It just provided a deeper and final understanding of what Immaculate Conception means. And in the future future popes will have the right to interpret the Immaculate Conception in the same sense and the same judgement. One day, perhaps in the future, a pope will explain to us if the Immaculate Conception is to be understood with animation at the same time - or not. If it means that Our Lady was Immaculately Conceived...... already in the moment of conception - that would provide a deeper understanding. But it doesn't change the tradition - it doesn't change the sense of the dogma; it doesn't change the sententia, the judgement of the dogma. We needed l950 years until we finally could give our assent of faith and HAD to give our assent of faith to the bodily Assumption of Our Lady into heaven. That wasn't changing anything. The Church has always believed that. The Apostles were witnesses to that. They found an empty grave and a lot of lilies growing. So where did She go? The Catholic Church knew from the very beginning that Our Lady was Assumed into heaven as a singular exception in mankind. Well-deserved I say. It didn't change anything. Tradition doesn't change. And I come back to that awful definition of Vatican II again where it says there is a growth in insight. Now that is right - there IS a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. Of course! That comes about in various ways - and now we start the heresy: It comes about through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. Uh uh! It doesn't!

    Tradition is depending on a certain point on the sensus fidelio - that means on what everybody has believed all the time. But it doesn't come from some mystical experience of ourselves. It doesn't come from what we meditate in our foolish minds. The sensus fidelium pertains only to those things that pertain to EVERYBODY in the Church. Not through theological distinctions. The average faithful who has not studied theology is not capable of that. And most priests who have studied theology are not capable of the right distinctions. So how can they improve Tradition? It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And now we are at the heart of the modernist crisis:

    Experience!
    Things are not any more what they are; things today are what they are to me and to you and to him and to her. It's pure subjectivism. The new definition of Tradition is a subjectivist, phenomenologist, modernist and therefore heretical definition. Tradition is not alive in the sense that it can change. Tradition is alive in the sense that it is not dead. Tradition lives on in the same sense and in the same judgement as St. Vincent de Lerins was quoted by Vatican I. What is then this sensus fidelium - the sense if the faithful.? The understanding of the faithful. The same St. Vincent de Lerins whom I quoted before says, In the sense that the faith was believed always, everywhere by everybody. With other famous Church Fathers you will have the sense of the faithful explained as something that comes from the sense of faith and is the universal adherence of the faithful to the teachings in matters of faith and morals. It is a gift of God which has to do with the subjective reality of the faith and gives the whole church the assurance of an indefectible faith - the whole Church mind you. It is a strength and almost instinctive power to know the truth revealed by God. Adhere to it, discern it and penetrate it in all of its amplitude. It certainly is NOT a religious sentiment of the modernist type. It is a knowledge by assimilation, adaptation, conformity or co-naturalness. To this definition we would add in the spirit of St. Vincent de Lerins that it also has a special affinity with everything that Holy Church has taught over the centuries in a uniform and consistent manner that excludes Vatican II totally, and which has always stirred up enthusiasm in the best that could be found among the faithful. Enthusiastic as people today are about Vatican II you can see easily the churches are empty and people leave the Church by hundreds every day. That is the enthusiastic approval of the great second Pentecost.

    The best way to explain a person who has the sensus fideleum - not everybody is born with the sensus fidelium for most people sacrifice it for their own vainglory and their personal subjective interest. I mean who likes to hear that artificial contraception is (forbidden) - not in a hedonistic age of today where everybody wants to have everything for free. People just don't like to abstain from contraception. They want to have free love which Chesterton says very well is neither love nor free. It is slavery of sex. But they want to be slaves of sex - so starting with that point they do not accept the doctrine of the church any more. The moment they reject one single doctrine of the church they immediately lose the sensus fidelium. You know, many of you have the sensus fidelium because you simply do not reject anything that the Church says. You do not know everything the Church says. I am a doctor of theology and I do not know everything the Church says. Impossibe! It's too much! But instinctively I can grasp what the Church says. Those of you who approve of what I say have the sensus filelium. You have not studied theology and yet you understand what I am talking about. When you read an encyclical of a predecessor of John XXIII - that means it guarantees that everything is correct - you accept it immediately, not just because of obedience but because you like what you read. That's the sensus fidelium. The old latin expression of sensus fidelium is: those are the people, who coming from no background whatsoever, one day find the Church. Those are the people who in the old days - Protestants for example, or pagans - happened to drop into a local Cathedral - take the Cathedral of Philadelphia when it was still in Catholic hands - dropped into the Cathedral on Sunday or on a high feastday and found the Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia celebrating a Pontifical Solemn High Mass and they stopped in wonder, dropped on their knees, and asked for conversion. That is the sensus fidelium. They recognised the truth just watching it!

    Now today, you go down there into the Cathedral of Philadelphia which is in the hands of the Church of the New Advent - the new Adventists - and you will hear. "Good morning to everybody, so glad you're here" (heavily accented American slang voice). I don't go to Church for that! That's the sensus fidelium. Now the sensus fidelium might once again save the Church. People like you because you're here to hear the truth. I don't think you came here to have the entertainment of your life. Might as well watch Tom Clancy's life of Dober. You came here to hear the truth. You want the approval of your sensus fidelium if you have it. It might be - the so-called traditionalists I do not like the term because we do not follow and ism, - we follow the Catholic Doctrine. That means we are not 'traditionalists' we are simply Catholics who believe in the one Baptism, the one Faith and the one Church. We do not believe in several churches. And who cares if you are baptised anyway. We do not believe that. No baptism no salvation; no Church no salvation; no faith no salvation period.

    Three times before in history there are magnificent examples on how the sensus fidelium - the real grasp of tradition - saved the Church:
    • The first time was under the heretical pope Liberius in the fourth century. When Pope Liberius fell for the Arian heresy that said that Christ Our Lord was not divine. A Pope, mind you, until Liberius all Popes were canonised. Liberius was the first one that was not canonised. But St. Anathasius fought the Pope, and disobeyed the Pope publicly like Archbishop Lefebvre did. St, Anathasius was canonised. Who saved the church at the time? The Pope didn't; the bishops didn't. As usual the Bishops had other problems and went with the Pope into the heresy. The people saved it. The simple faithful who rejected the new heresy.

    • The second example is with Pope Honorius. Pope Honorius believed that Christ had only one Will. That is not true of course because He would either not be God or not Man. Christ was fully God and fully Man and still is. So He has His Divine Will. A person without will is not a person. AND He had His Will as a human being. So there were two Wills in Christ otherwise how would it be possible that Christ was obedient? If he could not submit his human will to the divine will he could not be obedient. But Pope Honorius III said I don't believe that. So the people went mad against him - that was the old days in Rome. To show you how the old days in Rome were. In 5095 my patron saint, St. Gregory the Great, dared to add a few words to the canon of the Mass. At the moment when the priest stretches out his hands and says Hanc igitur he put in the words, that you may dispose our days in your peace. The people of Rome almost killed him. They said, how dare you touch the Canon. What's the matter with you? Imagine how the people of Rome in those days would have reacted to the new Order of Mass. Paul VI! ZiiiPP! He would not have survived it. This is the sensus fidelium. Pope Honororius was a heretic and the people said, come on we don't buy that.

    • The third example in 1332 Pope John 22nd said that the souls of the faithful cannot have the beautific vision before the last judgement. And he said that the souls of the damned will not go to hell before the last judgement. That's a heresy. But he said it, and you know what? He wrote that down. He preached it and he wrote it. When his writings were read to the most reverend professors of the University of Paris those professors got up and left. They said, we don't want to hear that! That's garbage! When the people heard about it (Father must have given a sign here which was followed by laughter). They thought they had a Granola bar Pope and they had. As nutty as a fruitcake until his death when he took back that horrible heresy. Only the last day of his life he took back that heresy. But the people never accepted it. Oh some wise guys did as usual and some theologians of course. But generally the people didn't.
    You see this is the sensus fidelium. We had three heretical popes in history but at all three times it was the people who saved the ship. With this sensus fidelium at the same time, I gave you a sermon because I appeal to YOUR sensus fidelium. Don't let any of your vainglorious opinions keep you from the sensus fidelium. You will never lose the sensus fidelium as long as in your heart and your mind you agree automatically with what the church taught before l958. In the old days the people knew - instinctively knew, in their sensus fidelium that they would not have the right to accept heresies even if they were coming from the Pope.

    I think you know the following quotation: but though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed. St. Paul.

    We don't have an angel giving us a new doctrine which we have to reject but we have a Pope who does so. See this is another reason why it is said we do not have the right to judge a person because how would we know why John Paul II became the way he is? He didn't have a good seminary. He wasn't lucky as I was to have the Summa Theologicae of St. Thomas Aquinas on his bookshelf. He was taught, long before he decided to become a priest, he was taught some very evil doctrines by the theatre group he joined that was founded by a certain (name) of he Anthropist Office. That is a very evil and satanic spirit. We can't judge the man. But we can judge the Pope as far as his papal pronouncements are concerned. I've given you a vivid example of what can happen if a Pope ignores the basic doctrines of philosophy which is the doctrine of active potency in St. Thomas Aquinas which I have explained before. To come back to the last minutes of this speech to the document Ecclesia Dei the Pope says in number 4 he gives the wrong definition of tradition. In number three he says such disobedience means Archbishop Lefebvre ignoring what the Pope commanded, such disobedience which implies in practice the rejection of Roman Primacy - that's a lie! If I, for some reason do not obey my Superior, That doesn't mean at the same time that I deny his authority to give commands. If I am a colonel in the Us Army and the General tells me to kill my wife I am going to say, No sir, I am not going to do that sir. But I do not deny that he is a general and my superior. That's rubbish! The Pope is simply erroneous when he says 'such disobedience implies a rejection of the Primate. It doesn't! It never has! It has never been considered such. By circumstances it might come out to the same - under certain circumstances. But not principally. And the Pope said 'SUCH' disobedience. He cannot say that. [...] Such disobedience can never be schism. A rejection of the papal authority. Then he says three or four times over in this document - he calls the SSPX schismatic implicitly or explicitly by saying that we have to get them back into the church. Rome doesn't believe that. Even Rome doesn't believe it. You see, the title of my talk is Tradition. But here, the Pope throws out the window not only the concept of tradition itself but the tradition of moral theology; the tradition of legal understanding in the church; the tradition of legal judgements in the church; the tradition of canon law in the church. He disregards his own canon law; he disregards his predecessors in their dogmatic pronouncements and he disregards his predecessors in their ordinary magisterium. This is against the sensus fidelium. It is against tradition; it is against what the church teaches and it's against anything we know as Catholic.

    Why is it, last point of today, that this Pope is still Pope? I said before because he's not in formal heresy and remember that. I don't want any of you to drift into the sedevacantists because then you would be schismatic. Anybody who says that this Pope is not Pope is a schismatic. Archbishop Lefebvre said that he IS the Pope. He has the command of authority. But for reasons of faith and for saving the church I do not obey to this singular command that forbids me to consecrate Bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre said it is necessary to consecrate Bishops in order to have Catholic priests. Therefore, for the better good of the church, for the survival of the church, in an act of self-defense, I do not accept this particular command coming from the Pope. And at the same time he said We never want to break the union with Rome for that. I just disobey on this one point because the Pope is giving a command that is against his own canon law and in canon 752 says the highest law of the church is the salvation of souls. Amen! What does the traditionalist-minded Catholic, which means simply the Catholic - do? You ignore him. You do not deny his authority if you want to stay in the church. You pray for him. Please do. I will in a few minutes on the altar because I am NOT a schismatic. And I am Not a sedevacantist. Pray for the Pope but don't listen to what he says. Don't reject it for a principle. That would make you a schismatic again. Reject it because you have not studied theology to distinguish what is right and wrong in his writings. Most of the things he says may be correct. There is a lot of blah blah in his writings. LOTS of blah blah. LOTS of it! TRUCKLOADS of it! But then you do not have the capacity or the authority to distinguish what is right and wrong in his documents.

    In Church tradition a document that contains a single error will finish on the Index on the list of Forbidden Books. I propose that we all,in our minds, put the entire Vati.II and the encyclicals of the present Pope on the Index. Most of them contain error or heresies. I will quote only one here: The Spirit of Christ does not refrain to give salvation to the efforts of Protestant churches. It is a heresy against what Pope Eugene IV defined in l441 at the Council of Florence when he said, Nobody who is in heresy or schism can be saved under no circumstances even if he thinks that he is shedding his blood for Christ.

    Objectively speaking of course, doesn't mean everybody is in hell. Objectively speaking again I underline that. The Pope again, objectively speaking, says the spirit of Christ does not refrain from giving salvation to the efforts of the Protestant churches. If he had said that one or other of the Protestants might be saved withstanding his membership in a heretical church - OK - possible! Not very probable - possible. But Christ Himself cannot give salvation to the efforts of heretical and schismatic churches. So you just stick to what the Popes said up to Pius XII who was the last Pope whose documents are free of error. Completely free of error. I am not pronouncing a personal judgement neither on the Pope nor coming from my person. I just check with his predecessors. If a Pope there was to contradict a predecessor in matters of faith and morals I am not allowed to follow him. St. Thomas says so, most of the saints said so. Some Popes have indicated the possibility that successors might be heretics. Pius IX servant of God in a letter to the Bishop of Brixton in 1869 said, if a future Pope pronounces heresy you just don't follow him. That's what I repeat here. It is not Father Gregory Hesse speaking it's Pope Pius IX speaking. If there is a Pope who pronounces heresy you do not follow him. At the same time do not deny that he is Pope. You only complicate things. The sedevacantists base themselves on misconception of the value of pronouncements in a Papal encyclical which is something going a little bit too far for today. Keep faithful to tradition. Retain and hang on to your sensus fidielium; Reject the concept of 'living tradition' and whatever else I couldn't say today will be filled in tomorrow with my speech about St. Pius X and tradition and modernism quoting and reading to you parts of Pascendi Dominici Gregis, the famous encyclical condemning modernism and you won't BELIEVE what a prophetical document that is. So, in a few moments I will say holy Mass and I will offer up today's Mass for John Paul II.

    Emphasis as per Fr. Hesse
    Underlining added


    ..
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017