“Correctio Filialis”

Aquinas_Amoris


At long last, the world of Novus Ordo conservatives has come to grips with reality, at least to a certain extent. I am referring to the Filial Correction concerning Propagated Heresies which was sent to Bergoglio this past summer, and publicized a few weeks ago.

It accuses Bergoglio, in a rather long-winded document, of having promulgated heresies in Amoris Lætitia, the notorious encyclical which authorizes both fornication and adultery. The Latin title of this encyclical means “The Joy of Love,” but many sarcastically refer to it as “The Joy of Adultery.”

The document contains abominable heresies and errors, and represents just one more nail — a real big one — in the Novus Ordo’s coffin.

So for us the promulgation of heresy by the Novus Ordo hierarchy is nothing new. It has been doing this for over fifty years. John Paul II promulgated heresy in Catechesi Tradendæ in 1979, when he declared in that encyclical that children should be taught that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation. “[I]t is extremely important to give a correct and fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial communities that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using as means of salvation.” (Catechesi Tradendæ, no. 32)

This is bold heresy, because it is contrary to the dogma of the Church that outside the Church there is no salvation. If you assert that there is some means of salvation outside the Catholic Church, you commit a direct contradiction of the Catholic dogma.
But John Paul II was saying nothing new. He was merely quoting Vatican II. He even cites the text of the council in the sentence following what I have quoted.

The truth is that non-Catholic religions, since they contain some truths, are able to inform their followers of these truths, which may, in turn, alert them to the truth of the Catholic Faith. Hence a devout Protestant, by carefully reading his Protestant Bible, might see the evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. From there, he might conclude that he is in the wrong religion , a n d consequently be drawn to the Catholic Church.

This fact, that non-Catholic religions communicate some truths, which in most cases they have stolen from the Catholic Church, does not make them a “means of salvation.” If the Protestant, doubting or denying the truth of his Protestant religion, does not search and pray for the true religion, and fails to become a Catholic by the grace of God, he goes to hell.

A means of salvation is any kind of agency which is endowed with the power of God to teach, rule, and sanctify the human race. This agency is unique in the world, and it is none other than the Catholic Church. Other religions are not even “churches,” but merely collections of schismatics, heretics or pagans as the case may be, and have no ability to bring men to heaven.

In fact, they are truly means of damnation, since, if one follows their tenets, he will be led into serious dogmatic and moral error, and will lose his soul. Heresy is poison, and it takes but a little bit in a cup of water to have its lethal effect. Non-Catholics are led to the Catholic Faith despite their false religions, and not because of them. Non-Catholics need to accomplish the very difficult task of sifting the truth from the morass of falsehood in their false religions.

John Paul II, although a blatant heretic, is nonetheless one of the gods of the Novus Ordo conservatives. This is because he said some good things. He was against abortion, although many “Catholics” professed belief in abortion, many of them nuns, under his “reign.” He was against contraception, although contraception among “Catholics” became rampant under his “reign.”

So why, after more than fifty years of Vatican II, have the Novus Ordo conservatives awakened to the fact that there is something wrong in Rome

The document which they presented to Bergoglio has both positive and negative aspects about it.

The positive aspect of the Correction. There is a single positive aspect of this Correction. It is that the Novus Ordo conservatives have finally admitted that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is teaching heresy to the entire Catholic Church. This is a devastating admission, inasmuch as it contains all of the logic of what we are saying, and have been saying for many, many years. For they are accusing Bergoglio not merely of personal heresy, that is, that he, as an individual, professes heresy. They are accusing him of promulgating heresy to the whole Church. By asserting this, they are giving proof positive that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is not the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for it is impossible that the true Roman Catholic hierarchy do such a thing. The Catholic Church is assisted by Christ in all of its universal teachings, laws and disciplines. The Catholic Church can never promulgate to the whole Church teachings, laws, or disciplines which contradict Catholic doctrine or which are in any way evil or pernicious. This is true even if what is universally promulgated does not have the mark of infallibility. In other words, the authoritative but non-infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church — what is typically contained in most encyclicals — could conceivably contain an error, but could never contain a pernicious error or a heresy. For we are bound under pain of mortal sin to give what is called religious assent to non-infallible universal teachings, and the object of this religious assent could never be an error which is contrary to faith or morals.

I cannot, however, think of a single example in the Church’s past of an any error at all in this non-infallible form of teaching.

These Novus Ordo conservatives are accusing Bergoglio of teaching a doctrine which is contrary to Catholic moral teaching, which is necessarily infallible, based as it is on revelation and on the universal teaching of the Catholic Church. That adultery is a mortal sin is the universal teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, and qualifies for ordinary universal magisterium which is infallible.

Furthermore, they are not accusing Bergoglio of erring about how many wings angels have, but are accusing him of teaching a heresy of the moral order. They correctly reduce this error to Modernism and Protestantism, thereby indirectly accusing Bergoglio of adhering to these heresies as well.

It is impossible that the Church promulgate universally any doctrine which contradicts its own magisterium. Cardinal Franzelin, an outstanding theologian of the nineteenth century, and the principal theologian of the Vatican Council of 1870 said this:

The holy apostolic See to which the guarding of the deposit of faith has been divinely committed, and the conjoined function and duty of ruling the universal Church for the purpose of the salvation of souls, can command theological propositions to be held inasmuch as they are connected to theological matters, or condemn them as not to be held, not only with the intention of declaring the truth infallibly by a definitive judgement, but also without that [intention of defining], from the need or intention of assuring the security of Catholic doctrine, either in general or because of special circumstances. In declarations of this type, although there is no infallible truth, because in this case there is no intention to define, there is nonetheless an infallible security. This security is both objective security of the doctrine declared, either in general or because of special circumstances, and subjective security, inasmuch as it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe to refuse to embrace it, nor can one refuse to embrace it without the violation of the submission due to the divinely constituted magisterium. [emphasis added] (De Divina Traditione et Scriptura, Rome, 1882, page 127-128)

The Cardinal here is teaching something which is universally taught by all theologians, and confirmed by Pope Pius XII, namely that the Church’s infallibility is not restricted to defined dogmas, but that it extends to approval and condemnation of theological propositions which are associated in some way with the Church’s dogmas and moral teaching. This is true even if the pope or a Vatican Congregation, which is empowered by the pope, promulgates teachings without the intention to make a definitive judgement. To these doctrines we owe not the assent of faith, but what is known as religious assent, which is the obedience of our intellects to the Church as she is the teacher of sacred things to the whole world. This religious assent is absolutely safe, inasmuch as the Church, by divine assistance, could never promulgate to all the faithful a doctrine which contradicted its own teaching, or in other words, a doctrine which would be a sin to embrace.

Amoris Lætitia violates these sacred principles of the security of the Church’s official teachings. Every Catholic must repudiate Amoris Lætitia because it contradicts Catholic moral teaching which is de fide. Nor can anyone argue that the errors contained in this dreadful document are merely Bergoglio’s opinions, as if he were merely giving an interview to a journalist.

Rightly, therefore, do the authors of the Correction say that he has promulgated heresies in Amoris Lætitia.

The conclusion, by all the principles of Catholic doctrine concerning the infallibility of the Church, is inevitably that the hierarchy which promulgated this document is not the Catholic hierarchy. A true Catholic hierarchy cannot do this, because it is assisted by Christ.

The first negative aspect of the Correction. The first negative aspect of the correction is that they are restricting this accusation of promulgating heresy to Bergoglio, and only to this document.

As I have said many times, Bergoglio is not the problem; Vatican II is the problem.

Bergoglio is only the “flower” on the bush of Vatican II, inasmuch as he is bringing to logical fruition all of the principles of this evil council.

Vatican II’s fundamental error is the primacy of conscience over the teaching of the Church. This wicked and dogma-destroying doctrine is contained in the principle of ecumenism. To say that heretical sects are means of salvation is to say that God has no care of truth, and that what counts is your experience of God, and not the truth about God. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Mortalium Animos of 1928, said that such an error amounts to the abandonment of the religion revealed by God. Referring to “those who consider all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is ‘inborn in us all,’ ” he states:

Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

In the Modernist system, what gives a religion “value” is that it is the product of your interior encounter with God. The objective dogmas count for nothing; they are merely expressions of people’s religious experiences. Ecumenism, therefore, is the doctrine which flows from the principle that conscience has precedence over doctrine.

Amoris Lætitia is loaded with this principle. Is it not through a “discernment” that fornicatory couples or adulterous couples realize that they are doing nothing wrong? It is pure conscience over law. The true notion of conscience is that it applies the law. It does not make up the law. The law comes from God. The conscience applies it: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

The Novus Ordo conservatives, therefore, are completely missing the boat if they fail to see that the doctrinal deviations of Bergoglio are merely an application of the fundamental principle of Vatican II.

The second negative aspect of the Correction. The second problem is that it is a correction. The authors of this document have deceived themselves into thinking that it is the proper place of lay people or even priests or bishops to correct the pope.

Novus Ordo conservatives cite with futility the example of St. Paul correcting St. Peter, since this correction was not in a matter of doctrine, but of behavior. They point out the case of the theologians of the University of Paris citing the error of John XXII concerning the Beatific Vision after death. But the analogy fails again, because John XXII was speaking only as a private theologian, and did not impose his errors as universal teaching. In the case of Bergoglio, we are talking about heresies promulgated to the whole Church. For the reasons I stated above, the entire nature of the problem is changed, since it involves the very infallibility of the Church, and not merely the personal heresy of Bergoglio.

A “correction” implies two obvious problems: (1) that we cannot trust the teaching of the pope; (2) that we should trust the teaching of the correctors.

What is the purpose of a pope if he is subject to correction by a self-appointed Board of Correctors? Who assists the Board of Correctors? The Holy Ghost? Where in Sacred Scripture or Tradition is a Board of Correctors mentioned?

Consequently the whole notion of “correction” is deeply flawed and ruins the authority of the Church. It smacks of Gallicanism, Jansenism, and Febronianism, three very related errors, which held that the doctrinal decisions of the Holy See are subject to the review and consent of the faithful.

Who is the rightful interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, except the pope? Who has ultimate say, except the pope? Ruin this principle, and you ruin the entire Catholic Church.

The third negative aspect of the Correction. The third problem with this correction is that it will be seen as a “fix” to the Bergoglio problem. The pope promulgates heresies. A handful of people correct him. There. The problem is fixed.

The idea of correcting popes in doctrinal matters utterly destroys the teaching authority of the Church. The only remedy for a “pope” who is promulgating heresies is that cardinals or even bishops, even if they be Novus Ordo, first convert from the Vatican II religion to the Catholic Faith, and then undertake a formal accusation of heresy against the “pope.” If he should refuse to recant the heresies, then they must declare the Roman See vacant and move to elect a new pope. However, they must elect someone who will repudiate Vatican II and its reforms, and not merely repudiate Bergoglio’s heresies. Only in this way will the Church’s current problem be fixed.

To set up a system of “correction” of heretical “popes,” done by self-appointed “correctors,” implies that it is quite possible that a Catholic pope promulgate heresy to the entire Church, and quite normal that self-appointed “correctors” come to the rescue.

It means that the infallibility of the Church rests with a board of self-appointed correctors.

In such a case, why do we need a pope? Why not just have the Board of Correctors?

The Novus Ordo conservatives, however, detest the notion of the vacancy of the Roman See so much, that they prefer this objectively heretical position of correcting a heresy-promulgating “pope.”

Nonetheless, a step in the right direction. At least what can be said for this Correction is that it is a step in the right direction. The Novus Ordo conservatives have finally opened their eyes, to a certain extent. Their constant attempt to see clothing on the naked emperor has finally failed, that is, the perpetual offering of flimsy and absurd interpretations that attempt to change heresy into orthodoxy.

They also will have a hard time denying the sedevacantist conclusion. For anyone with common sense knows that a “pope” who is promulgating heresies could not possibly be a true pope. How could anyone defend the infallibility of the Church to a Protestant, for example, by saying that although Bergoglio is officially and universally promulgating heresies, nevertheless the Church is infallible in its universal teachings? And that this infallibility is guaranteed by a self-appointed Board of Correctors? His response would be: Martin Luther was right after all!

All Catholic doctrine, theology and common sense point to the vacancy of the Roman See. Let us pray that, now that the blindfold has been removed from their eyes, the Novus Ordo conservatives might look around and discover other realities about Vatican II and its reforms, and what to do about them.

3 thoughts on ““Correctio Filialis”

  1. Thank you Father Desposito….all news from the Seminary is always welcome! Looking forward to meeting you in less than fifty days in Florida. God bless you all!

    Like

  2. Thank you for this article. No, doctrine does not matter and in fact doctrine is a hindrance in this brave new world of “One World Church.” That is where I believe all of this is heading with Francis and Friends at the helm. I am sure you have seen the initiatives to make friends across religions and denominations. As far as I can tell, the New Evangelization means there is no longer any need for conversion. Yes, it is all about personal conscience and personal religious experience. As for the Protestants, they have only one sacrament — that of the “sinner’s prayer.” Say that “magic prayer” and it’s all good for eternity. Not! I believe we are witnesses to the great apostasy. All can be tolerated except those who hold to the ageless, timeless, unchanging and traditional Catholic faith. Anyone who dares to say that there is absolute truth — well then, it’s off with their heads. Do you really think the conservative scholars, professors and theologians in the Modernist Roman Church are going to fully awaken and renounce Vatican II? Perhaps, some will, but it will come with a stiff price tag.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s