A recent article appeared on the site entitled Settimo Cielo (Seventh Heaven) which is operated by Sandro Magister, a well-known ﬁgure in the Novus Ordo conservative world. The article is written by a certain Roberto Pertici, professor of contemporary history at the University of Bergamo in Italy. Continue reading
In an interview about the Rome Conference, Roberto de Mattei, professor of history and well-known in Novus Ordo conservative circles, made this statement about the conference: “I appreciated the recent interview in which Raymond Cardinal Burke afﬁrmed that we ﬁnd ourselves faced with an intolerable situation, and it is licit to criticize the Pope when he propagates errors and heresies. [emphasis added] He also said:
Sacred Tradition remains the criterion for discerning that which is Catholic and that which is not, causing the visible marks of the Church to shine. Tradition is the faith of the Church that the Popes have maintained and transmitted throughout the course of the centuries. But Tradition comes before the Pope and not the Pope before Tradition.
On April 7th a conference took place in Rome. The title of the conference was: “Catholic Church, where are you going?” The speakers were the usual do-nothing and hand-wringing Novus Ordo conservatives, such as the two remaining signers of the Dubia (the list of questions put to Bergoglio about the scandalous and heretical document Amoris Lætitia), that is, Novus Ordo Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller. Also speaking was Novus Ordo Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who has made the Novus Ordo conservative rounds nearly everywhere. There were others. About four hundred persons attended.
You would think that, in the wake of Bergoglio’s public denial of hell, the speakers would have said: “The sedevacantists are right. Bergoglio is a heretic. Vatican II has all but destroyed Catholicism in the world.” Instead, the theme seemed to be one of why there is confusion in the Church. Confusion? The only ones that are confused are the Novus Ordo conservatives, since they choose to be confused. For the Modernists are not confused; they know what they are doing. The sedevacantists are not confused; we know what the problem is and how to solve it. It is these conservatives who want to solve this problem in the Church without becoming sedevacantists. This is true even though sedevacantism has overpowering support on the part of Sacred Theology, holy Doctors of the Church, and eminent theologians. Beyond that, and more importantly, the vacancy of the Roman See is a conclusion which is demanded by the indefectibility of the Church, which pertains to faith. It is the faith itself which draws the conclusion that the Vatican II “popes” cannot be true popes, since the faith requires us to believe that the Church’s authority cannot, on a universal level, promulgate false teachings, evil disciplines, and false liturgical practices.
We are now ﬁfty-two years since the close of Vatican II in 1965, and these people are asking where the Church is going? I remember attending lectures at Fordham University in the late 1960’s where they were asking the same question.
About a month ago, just before Easter, Bergoglio gave an interview to Eugenio Scalfari, the 93-year-old journalist, an atheist, and friend of Bergoglio. He granted an interview to Scalfari back in 2015, in which he denied the existence of hell, saying that really evil people do not go to hell after death, but are merely annihilated, that is, cease to exist.
People ask me from time to time whether it is permissible to go to confession to a validly ordained Novus Ordo priest.
There are some traditionalist priests, although sedevacantists, who give an affirmative answer to this question. They allow it in case of necessity. They argue that since the Novus Ordo priest is not excommunicated, and does not belong to a declared non- Catholic sect, Canon Law admits that he could be approached for sacraments. Continue reading
Recently in Church History class we were discussing the heretic Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople who, in 428, pronounced his heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God because the two natures in Christ, divine and human, were only connected in an accidental manner.
Already in 428, the clergy of Constantinople broke communion with him, that is, they did not recognize him as a Catholic archbishop. Similarly, as the people were seeking the traditional preaching of the Faith, they publicly cried out: “An Emperor we have, but no bishop.” It was not until 431, however, at the Council of Ephesus, that he was officially condemned. At that council, up until the moment of his condemnation, he was addressed as “Your Reverence” and given other formalities of honor. (Yet they did not permit him to sit among the bishops, but in a special place as an accused culprit).
So a seminarian asks the question: If Bergoglio is not yet officially condemned, then why do we not give him the title of “Your Holiness?” There are essentially three answers to this question: (1) people would vomit on calling him “Your Holiness;” (2) one must always distinguish between the world of reality and the world of legality; (3) the normal processes of accusation and condemnation are not available to us. I will not address the first reason, since it is obvious to all. I will proceed to the second.
The Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Argentinean Novus Ordo Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, declared that “at this moment, the Chinese are the ones implementing Catholic social teaching best.”
He said that the Chinese “look for the common good and subordinate other things to the general welfare.” He said, “the central Chinese value is work, work, work. There’s no other way, basically it’s what Saint Paul said: whoever does not work should not eat.” (Why Sorondo quotes St. Paul in this way I do not know. Saint Paul does not sound like a socialist or a promoter of the welfare state).
The next day, a Novus Ordo expert on China, a Father Cervellera, blasted Sorondo for his comments. He pointed out that people are arrested for practicing any religion. He said that since February 6th, all the unofficial churches have been closed. This would include the non-approved churches where Catholics have gone in order to avoid the government-controlled “Catholic Church” established by the Chinese communists since the time of the revolution. He said that local authorities now forbid minors under the age of 18 from entering churches, even official ones. He also pointed out that although China signed the Paris Climate Accord, nonetheless, according to Cervellera, China “has the most devastated and poisoned environment in the world.”
Cervellera concludes: “Idolizing China is an ideological affirmation that makes the Church a laughing-stock and hurts the world.”
To these comments we should add the following: (1) China is an officially atheistic country; (2) China is a communist country, communism having been condemned by Pope Pius XI as intrinsically evil; (3) China has had a one-child policy for decades, only recently permitting two; (4) China extols Mao Tse Tung as the founder of its present system, someone who murdered at least thirty million people. (5) China permits abortion on demand, as well as contraception on demand.
What Sorondo should have said was: “at this moment, the Chinese are the ones implementing Novus Ordo socialist teaching best.” In this he would be correct. The Novus Ordo is concerned only about this world, and the “betterment” of society through communism. Bergoglio’s speeches and writings are loaded with this sentiment.