Defective Church is Necessary Conclusion From Ferrara and Friends' Recent Gallican "Opposition" to Bergolian Modernist Apostasy "in" the Church. In this lecture, Ferrara cites Cardinal Ratzinger as admitting that Paul VI "banned"the Traditional Roman Mass.
Where did that Holy, Immaculate, Unspotted Bride of Christ Go?
Dr. Chojnowski: The topic of "traditional Catholic" "opposition" to the obvious apostasy which has been unfolding in Rome over the past 60 years must no longer be overlooked. The Pachamama idolatry of Francis and the bishops and clergy and faithful of the Novus Ordo New Religion is obvious, MANIFEST --- it seems like the very word was made for this occasion --- and clear in its implications to any one with even a basic knowledge of the Catholic Religion, whether Catholic in belief or not. Worshipping idols is the OPPOSITE of the Catholic Religion --- St. Boniface, cut down that tree!
What is confusing in these times, is not the obvious apostasy in Rome and throughout the Novus Ordo church, this was even clear to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1987, when he said that "Rome has lost the faith" and "Rome is in apostasy." What is "disorienting" is that the "official opposition." I say this because I find it strange that bishops and cardinals, who could easily be replaced or officially silenced, as were innumerable conservatives after Vatican II, are allowed to participate in the "opposition" to the public policy and actions of the current occupants of the Vatican. Is it because, as we see in this lecture by Chris Ferrara, the "opposition" to the Modernism is preaching, well, much the same heresy that is coming out the the mouths of the worshippers of Pachamama. To harsh a statement? No, because both the Modernists and their Gallican "opponents" are two sides of the same coin. Most fundamentally, both say that the Catholic Church is defective. Whereas, the Modernists say that doctrine is merely an expression of the moving consciousness of the faithful and that the leadership of the Church must catch up to the new consciousness of the egalitarian, eco-friendly faithful in the 21st century --- all of this, without the idea that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is preserving and proclaiming, untarnished, the pure and unsullied deposit of faith, the absolute infallibility and inerrancy of this guardianship being guaranteed by the Holy Ghost, the "opposition," very much expressed by the most recent lecture of Chris Ferrara in Poland, says that the people, just a better and more conservative set of people, must articulate the true faith in the face of the official teaching and actions of a Catholic hierarchy that has officially taught error, instituted defective and deleterious rites --- and banned the ones established by Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church -- sought to overturn, officially, the very Natural Law itself, and which has engaged in the "institutional backsliding" that requires laymen at organized conferences, organized without the say-so of the magisterial authority recognized by Chris Ferrara and the Fatima Center itself, in order to bring the hierarchy and the pope back to the Faith; the faith of the people --- the right sort of people of course, not the grass skirted ones running around St. Peter's worshipping idols and not the ones occupying at these events the episcopal and papal seats. According to Ferrara's view, we are all in the Church, but we express the true faith and they do not. But one day the hierarchy will catch up with OUR FAITH and belief and be in the right. So the Catholic Church is made up of people struggling over the question of who holds the Faith. What happened to the teaching Church and the listening, believing Church? What happened to the Church, period? In the scrum, has everyone lost the ball? I think, when it comes to which ever team we are speaking of in the Novus Ordo conciliar church, the answer is, yes. The true and Catholic faith has popped out of the scrum and the teams are only interested, not in the lost ball, but in pushing on each other.
To prove what I am saying here, with regard to what can be labelled the "Gallican" opposition to the Modernist apostates, I will cite a recent lecture by Chris Ferrara in Poland entitled, "The Third Secret and the Crisis in the Church," which was posted on November 28, 2019.
Here are selections from Chris Ferrara's lecture posted above:
Starting off with the topic of "apostasy in the Church," the now well known quote from Cardinal Ciappi is mentioned, in which he speaks of the Third Secret as being about, "The Apostasy in the Church will come from the very top." This "apostasy" is, as opposed to heresy, a "total repudiation of the Catholic Faith."
Where can we find this apostasy and how did it manifest itself first? Ferrara rejects Msgr. Pozzo's claim that there was a "paraconciliar ideology" which brought about the faithlessness that you find in the Church today. Ferrara also cites Cardinal Ratzinger, who stated that the problems in the Church stem from the "Council of the Media," whereas the "Real Council had difficulty establishing itself."
Against this view of the archbishop and the cardinal, Ferrara, "Begs to differ." Here he insists that it was the Vatican II Council itself that was responsible for the "novelties" [notice not "heresies"] that would ultimately produce the Frankenchurch of today. The "novelties" --- that, to perhaps dissuade us from thinking them serious heresies, he calls "meaningless" --- are ecumenism, aggiornamento, dialogue, and the liturgical revolution.
Through the "novelty" of ecumenism, Ferrara says that, "the Mission of the Church has been corrupted."
When speaking of the liturgical revolution, he says that Benedict XVI, in his autobiography, said, "I was dismayed by the banning of the old Missal. Since such a thing had not happened before in the entire history of the liturgy. Bannig of the old Missal and the promulgation of the new liturgy has brought about a break in the history of the liturgy." Here, Ferrara cites Ratzinger as saying that the old liturgy "was prohibited."
Concerning the "novelties" found in Amoris Laetitia, Ferrara insists that there is no abiguity in the text, especially in paragraph 303. There Ferrara insists we have a teaching from Francis that is MEANT to undermine the negative precepts of the Natural Law." Ferrara follows up by further indicting Francis by saying, "[His] entire pontificate has been a campaign to overturn that teaching [the indissolubility of marriage].
Finally, when dealing with "the apostasy in the Church," he asks, "Does the pope hold the Christian religion?" Answer Atty. Ferrara gives, "He might."
To cap it all off, he, just like the Modernists of the Vatican, uses the now exposed fake "Sister Lucy" to advance his agenda by citing her as saying, that "the final struggle between God an Satan will be or marriage and the family." In this discussion, he upholds the teaching on marriage as advanced by John Paul II against that of Francis I. The focus is always on teachings dealing with sex in some way. From what we have seen, this is typical of the Neo-Conservative Novus Ordo groups.
Dr. Chojnowski: So, by all the normal means by which the Church taught and proposed things as true and good doctrine, practice, and worship, we have "from the Church" an Ecumenical Council that teachs errors approved by the pope, a pope who tries to undermine and destroy the Natural Law teaching of the Church with regard to marriage and does so in the Acts of the Apostolic See, puts forward a liturgy which is bad and bans the true Mass, hence, worship of the Catholic Church, denies its own mission, which is to convert souls to itself. "The Church" can say A and not A at the same time; or is it that the Church now says "not A" until enough of the "authorities" listen to our speeches and start saying "A" again. Whichever way you turn it, you have a defective Church. In this, the Modernists and the "opposition" Gallicans, agree.
ReplyDelete"Where did that Holy, Immaculate, Unspotted Bride of Christ Go?"
She found shelter in the desert! The history of salvation has already gone so far. There is no more urgent reading than the Revelation of Saint John: what was a vision for him, for us these are painfully real events!
On Saturday afternoon, October 12, I was at this conference in Warsaw. I listened to three lectures, including one decent sermon by Father Rodrigez, but I didn't learn anything new about Fatima. I thought they were experts, and it is rather a traveling theater with a long-worn repertoire. I did not get a satisfactory answer why the Blessed Virgin had chosen Portugal for her apparitions and not some other country. I wanted to meet the famous Christopher Ferrara, but God's Providence kept me at home on Sunday, October 13. I would once again listen to the guesses about the indiscretion of Cardinal Ciappi regarding the 3rd Secret when this secret is available on the internet?!
So, according to Christopher Ferrara, his "Pope" *might* hold the Christian religion.
ReplyDeleteWe can tell we're in the midst of an apostasy when a supposed champion of "Tradition", like Christopher Ferrara, needs to be told that a pope must be Catholic.
But the biggest mistake anyone can make is to naively think that Christopher Ferrara and his friends are stupid. They are not. They know exactly what they're saying and doing. They're deliberately using the same tools as the Free Masons (i.e. sophistry) to twist the Church's infallible teachings, especially on the primacy of the Roman pontiff.
(Also, regarding Sr. Lucy, Christopher Ferrara undoubtedly knows there's a mountain of scientific evidence proving that there was an impostor Lucy. So, why does a thinking lawyer ignore the evidence, as if it doesn't exist, and insist on the legitimacy of his own position? Make no mistake about it, he's using nefarious tactics.)
Christopher Ferrara and his friends must realize that it's spiritual suicide for their followers to believe that an anti-Christ, like Francis, can also be the Vicar of Christ. Since Ferrara and the rest use logical fallacies and lies to propagate their position, then they're apparently working with the enemy-- to make Catholics godless.
In 1987 Archbishop Lefebvre said that "Rome has lost the faith" and "Rome is in apostasy."
ReplyDeleteIn the same year he wrote to the future bishops that “the positions of authority in Rome are occupied by antichrists”.
A year later, he signed the Protocol of Accord, which he did rescind the following day but only because he didn’t trust the “positions of authority in Rome” agreeing on a date for the consecration of bishops. The hotels were already booked and the tents were rented (the ones to be used for the outdoor ceremonies). However, he did say “it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days”.
So, he had real satisfaction signing an agreement with men he had previously said were antichrists. Is it any wonder the SSPX of today is a complete mess, when their Founder was all over the place himself? Same goes for Christopher Ferrara, and all of the other fellow-travellers. He, like the SSPX, refers to the “errors” and “novelties” of Vatican II. These people never call them out for what they really are: HERESIES. Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?
These are the same people who will tell their adoring fans that they want nothing to do with Pope Francis or his counterfeit church, but attack sedevacantists for being “against the pope” or for “leaving the Church”. Hypocrites! Before Ratzinger’s “election” Ferrara wrote an article in the Remnant describing him as “perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become”. After his election, Ratzinger suddenly became the bee’s knees, Ferrara even calling his new Good Friday prayer a “papal masterstroke”. Opposition, my foot. You could easily have added the adjective “controlled”.
Dr. Chojnowski so where can we find the Spotless Bride of Christ today?
ReplyDeleteThe Spotless Bride of Christ is the Catholic Church. It is made up of those who are Catholics and only those. Catholics are those who are baptised and profess the Catholic faith.
DeleteSounds like a protestant definition of an "invisible church." Where does ordinary jurisdiction fit into your description? It seems that you are positing a Catholic Church which can essentially change over time which of course is heresy as you know.
DeleteWhat you say is just plain wrong. Basically the entirety of the Catholic Bishops and the Pope went to Vatican II. "The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propse a teaching of faith or morals as one ot be held by all the faithful. (De fide)." It fits the very definition of infallibility. They decided basically unanimously on 2 new constitutions and many definitions and courses of actions considering faith and morals. There were like 3 bishops against it. More people left Vatican I because they protested against the dogma of the Papal infallibility then there were people against the outcomes of Vatican II. So to say it is not clear if Vatican II constituted a general council is just wishful thinking.
DeleteAlso you are wrong about your notion on infallibilty. It is a common error of the R+R crowd to claim that the Church is only infallible in their extraordinary magisterium. That is, if the Pope speaks ex cathedra, or the whole Church in unison at a general council. This is in fact a "grotesque carricature" of the Catholic teaching. Im quoting from "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott, which is THE book on Catholic Dogma, on the "Doctrines of God the Sanctifier". About the infallibilty: "The Vatican Council expressly declared that also the truths of Revelation proposed as such by the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are to be firmly held with "divine and catholic faith" (D 1792). ... The agreement of the Bishops in doctrine may be determined from the catechisms issued by them" ($13, 3. b). So the ordinary magisterium, as it can be taken out of the Catechism is infallible!
We all know that the new Catechism has errors. They even want to add "ecological" sins now! So the infallibility of the Church is not only in her extraordinary magisterium, as often claimed by R+R but also in here ordinary. How else would the Church even work?
Another point is the object of infallibility. Faith and morals is one thing. But the church is also infallible in "(t)he canonisations of saints .... If the Church could err in her opinion, consequences would arise which would be incompatbily with the sanctity of the Church" ($13. 2. b) ). So if the Church in Rome is the true Catholic Church then John Paul II is a saint! This is infallible teaching by the new Rome. The same goes for Paul VI. who destroyed the true mass! How can you reconcile that?
The next problem is with the indefectibility of the church, which is also dogma! "In saying that the Church is indefectible we assert her imperishablenes, .... and the essential immutabilty of her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy. This does not exclude the decay of individual "churches" (i.e. parts of the Church)" (Ott - $12 The indefectibility of the Church). But as we all have seen, the teaching and the worship have clearly changed!
So despite the attempts to deny that any dogmas are harmed by the Situation in Rome, the opposite is true. Either the Church is not infallible, because it has declared wrong Dogmas about its infallibility and indefectiblity. It has lied about being sent by Christ and being protected by him. Or the people who made these decisions are in fact not part of the Church.
"According to the Gallican theory, then, the papal primacy was limited, first, by the temporal power of princes, which, by the Divine will, was inviolable; secondly by the authority of the general council and that of the bishops, who alone could, by their assent, give to his decrees that infallible authority which, of themselves, they lacked; lastly, by the canons and customs of particular Churches, which the pope was bound to take into account when he exercised his authority."
ReplyDeleteThe above quote taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia states the basic principles of Gallicanism. As you can see, no traditional Catholic holds these opinions, therefore they are not Gallicans. Resisting or refusing to obey an errant Pope is not Gallicanism, it is the normal action taken by a Catholic whose faith is being attacked by one who possesses legal authority.
There is no such thing as an "errant Pope" on faith and morals; popes are infallible. SSPX and Resistance certainly have demolished the papal primacy in favour of a Menzingen primacy (or insert name of particular priest who holds primacy - Pfeiffer, Chazal, Willamson...) and what do they believe in from the teachings of their popes anyway? Will they let him teach, rule and sanctify them as all Catholics should? Refusing to obey a real pope on faith and morals is a damnable sin. Lucky that Jorge isn't one. What do you mean by quoting a phrase saying "the authority of a general council"? You don't believe in Vatican II do you? Isn't that a general council? Well, how can you speak of the authority of general councils if you don't believe in it? I hope you do know that general councils are infallible also. It's amazing how many people who say they reject Vatican II which they believe to be a general council and then tell us "one day a general council will say Francis is not pope". What good would that do for any of them? They will just ignore it again.
DeleteOne writer from the Remnant described "Pope" Francis as being the Liberace of all heretics. At least he was honest. Now we have someone saying that Francis was just "Errant". Talk about totally denying reality.
DeleteErrant means erring or straying from the proper course or standards. If we say that a "pope" who publicly worships false gods is just "errant", then we've got some pretty serious problems.
Christopher Ferrara wasn't talking about an "errant Pope". He was talking about an apostate or anti-Christ. He specifically asked, "Does the pope hold the Christian religion?" To which he replied, "He might." It doesn't really matter to Ferrara and his R+R buddies whether their "pope" worships God or the Pachamama.
But it does matter to real Catholics.
On the contrary, Popes can err. What you posit is a grotesque caricature of Catholic doctrine. Further, General Councils are infallible only to the extent that they exercise their authority in defining a matter of faith or morals. Outside of this, it is possible to err, however remote. Besides, it is not at all clear of Vatican II constituted a General Council properly speaking.
DeleteThe point of the quote from the CE article was to clarify what precisely Gallicanism actually held. It is obvious from the article that no traditional Catholic holds these opinions today so it would be best to stop the labeling them as such.
It is interesting to note that even on the hypothesis that a General Council could rise up in the future to condemn this revolt, you must necessarily reject it since your church has lost Apostolic Succession and divine authority to teach, being only a loose gathering of true believers.
Unknown is playing games--very much like Salza and Siscoe. He's trying to make Pope Pachamama appear better by pretending Pope Pachamama is just an "errant pope".
DeleteUnknown says, "Popes can err". Translation: Popes can be public apostates, who officially profess, teach and promote heresy to the entire Church. That's what Unknown really means--but is too shy to say so.
DeleteTo "err" is human. To Recognize and Resist, divine.
DeleteUnknown, have you looked into the new form for installing a bishop as opposed to the essential form for actually consecrating a bishop the Catholic way? If you do, you will find that we are not the ones who lost Apostolic succession. I also note your comment about the Church losing the mission to teach is incorrect. Think about it.
DeleteVery confusing situation. Where do we find the truth about the present reality of the Catholic Church?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that your analysis indicates that Chris Ferrara is trying to square the circle when he says that the Catholic faith remains in the Church despite its denial and ejection by the hierarchy. So where do we look for direction in managing our lives in a true Catholic way?
To me the sedevancantists proclaim the true faith of the Catholic Church. Accordingly, I am a supporter of Novus Ordo Watch and Bishop Sanborn's Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida. I do this even though I attend Novus Ordo Mass and am a member of Epiphany Cathedral Parish in Venice, Florida, under Bishop Frank Dewane.
I have given thought to joining the sedevacantists but cannot bring myself to do it at the present time. Question: What do you recommend we do Dr. Chojnowski?
God Bless you and your work.
I am in the same boat. I assist Holy Mass and receive the Sacraments at an IKCSP parish. More and more, I cannot see how to avoid the sedevacantist conclusion. I torment my wife about it almost every day! Yesterday, I proposed to her the following three propositions:
Delete1. Jorge Bergoglio is the Pope.
2. It is mortally sinful to resist the official teaching of the Pope.
3. The official teaching of Jorge Bergoglio contains heresy and blasphemy.
The above three propositions cannot all be true. At least one of them must be false. (2) is a teaching of past popes, and so I can't deny it. Hence either (1) or (3) is false. But I can't deny (3), so I must deny (1).
But I can't bring myself to affirm sedevacantism, and the simple reason is this: I fear making a mistake and somehow damning myself through some negligence. All I can do is admit that there serious doubt that Bergoglio is the Pope, and pray to God every day to preserve me in grace and keep me in his Church.
Also in the same boat. But Our Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. So, I know with dogmatic certainty that heretics, or apostates like Francis, cannot be true popes.
DeleteAlso found the truth regarding heretical "popes" in the Catholic reference books that were gathering dust on my shelves. Had stopped reading them because I believed the R+R, whose interpretations on the subject CONTRADICTED my books.
After Francis' "election", the R+R's honesty became suspect to me. Began reading Novus Ordo Watch and found that their facts and the information in my reference books MATCHED(!) Realized there and then that the R+R had been pulling the wool over my eyes for years with their false interpretations and twisting the facts.
There are no other options in our area, so we attend a Novus Ordo parish. The priests there profess the Catholic faith-- better than the SSPX who propagate the heresy of Gallicanism. Just do my best, so my conscience is perfectly clear.
Michael Dowd, If you leave the Novus Ordo for Bishop Sanborn you will be happy and never look back. No man can serve two masters. We began attending Bp Sanborn's clergy a few years ago and would never look back now. Anything offered "una cum Francis" is offensive to Almighty God.
DeleteSomeone who commented above doesn't seem to know what Gallicanism means and is in denial about the R+R position being Gallican and heretical.
ReplyDeleteAccording to A Catholic Dictionary (Attwater, 3rd Ed.), the second Gallican proposition "declared the supremacy of ecumenical councils over the pope... and the fourth declared that the pope has the principal share in questions of faith and that his decrees regard all the churches and every church in particular, but that his judgement is not irreformable (i.e. not final) unless the consent of the Church be added".
Both of the above propositions, which are held by the R+R today, "were condemned by the Vatican Council." The R+R position is heretical.
Do the R+R believe in the supremacy of ecumenical councils over the pope. Yes, they do. They insist that when a "pope" is a heretic, it is not the heresy itself that separates him from the Church, but it is a declaration by a council that causes his separation.
Do the R+R believe that a pope's judgment is final in questions of faith. No, they do not. They believe the consent of the Church must be added 100% of the time--oh, yeah, except when a pope speaks ex cathedra every hundred years or so. Why else do they call themselves the Recognize and Resist?
R&R,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you need a "formal judgment" in order to separate from a "pope" who is a danger to the faith?
Wait for a declaration, when it's too late and everyone's already an atheist? Thinking Catholics would see this as a mind-boggling redundancy--at the very least.
Yes, and seeing as in their eyes only "dogmatic definitions" are to be obeyed, then it would be useless anyway. They've ignored formal judgments for over 50 years and continuously written publications on why they are wrong.
Delete