Fr. Scott SSPX tells Catholics to refuse to follow the person he acknowledges to be the Head of the Church. He says to refuse to follow the Vicar of Christ in matters of religion.
“let us refuse to follow Pope Francis”
• NOVA ET VETERA – FOR TRUTH AND TRADITION IN SOUTH AFRICA
October 2013
Our Lady of Sorrows Priory
St. John the Baptist Catholic School
11 Amelia Street Roodeport 1724
(27) 11-763-1050
EDITORIAL
Dear friends of the Society of Saint Pius X in South Africa,
The old timers will recognize the title of the publication of Fathers Gerspacher and Daniels, as superiors in South Africa. In continuing a newsletter under this name, it is our intention to nourish with doctrine and profound spirituality your support and defense of Catholic Tradition. You will find the first in a series of articles on Our Lady of Quito and also on the great figures of the anti-modernist counter revolution.
The name itself is taken from St. Matthew`s Gospel. Our Divine Savior, having just explained the parables of the kingdom of heaven, draws a conclusion essential to the disciples` understanding of these parables, using this somewhat mysterious expression: “Every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings forth from his storeroom things new and old” (13:52).
The question of what is really meant by the new and the old is of fundamental importance to the traditional Catholic. The householder is the Church, the storeroom is the Church`s Tradition. But what are the old and the new and how can the Church bring forth both old and new at the same time without being in contradiction with itself?
TRADITIONAL “OLD” AND “NEW”
There are two answers to this question. The traditional answer is that the “old” refers to the unchanging apostolic Tradition: teachings and practices handed down from Apostolic times, and the “new” is the adaptation of these teachings to the cultures, historical times and circuмstances in which we are living, always understanding these teachings with the same essential meaning as in the past. This is what we call ecclesiastical Tradition. Vatican I quotes St. Vincent de Lérins, saying that the knowledge, understanding and wisdom of all of us must be “solely...in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding” (Db 1800). Thus, just to give a couple of examples, St. Dominic`s preaching of the Rosary was a response to the Albigensian heresy of the 13th century, the definition of the Immaculate Conception and the subsequent devotion to the Immaculate Mother of God was a response to the rationalism of the 19th century, and in particular to its denial of original sin. Yet both are immediate consequences of the devotion to Mary that dates from the earliest centuries. Likewise devotion to the Sacred Heart is the healthy reaction to the coldness of Jansenism, and the feast of Corpus Christi represents the more profound understanding of scholastic theology on Transsubstantiation, the Real Presence and the central role of the Holy Eucharist, the most sublime of all the sacraments, in our spiritual lives. Yet they are but developments of the essentially same doctrine on the Mercy of God and on the Holy Eucharist as can be found in the Fathers of the first centuries. This homogenous development brings new out of the old without changing it in any substantial way. Hence the often quoted rule of the Commonitorium of St. Vincent de Lérins (ch.2,3) that “in the Catholic Church, great care must be taken to hold firm to that which has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone”.
MODERN “OLD” AND “NEW”
The other answer is to say that the “new” need not have any real connexion with the “old”, but rather that present day Catholic teaching and practice can be radically different from that of the past, and yet not be in any contradiction with it. This is what St. Pius X condemned under the name of evolution of dogma – “Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed.” (Pascendi, §13). This ultimately denies all the Church`s teaching authority and “pervert(s) the eternal notion of truth and the true meaning of religion” (Ib.). It was likewise condemned by Vatican I, when speaking of the Pope’s infallible teaching authority: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith...”(Db 1836).
Pope Benedict XVI was acutely aware of this evolutionary threat to our belief in the Church`s divine institution, which is why, on December 22, 2005, he promulgated his theory of the “hermeneutics of continuity”. This means that there is a way of interpreting all that has been done after Vatican II to establish that it really is in continuity with pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Note that he does not say these teachings are identical, or essentially the same as before Vatican II, but simply that they are in continuity. In doing so he opposes it to the “hermeneutics of rupture”, the way of understanding of both traditional Catholics and radical modernists, who clearly see that the Vatican II church has broken with the past, and teaches the contrary to what the Church taught in the past; the traditional Catholics do so because they condemn it, the modernists because they praise it. This theory of continuity was Benedict XVI`s effort to explain how opposites (pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II) are not in contradiction with one another, for they share the same subject, the believing Church, in which the so-called continuity is to be found. The continuity that Benedict XVI proposes to justify the Vatican II revolution is consequently essentially a subjective one, and not in the objective domain at all. It is not a continuity in what is taught, but in the subject who teaches and believes – the Church. But this is hardly surprising, since he defines Faith in a purely subjective manner as “an encounter with the living God...a new experience and a luminous vision of existence” (Lumen fidei, §4 & 5).
POPE FRANCIS
Has Pope Francis renounced the evolutionary understanding of the new and old, you might ask? Does he also hold to a purely subjective continuity with the past?
Two recent interviews give us the answer to this question. On October 1 the Italian magazine published an interview with atheistic journalist Eugenio Scalfari entitled The Pope: How the Church will change. The world was shocked to read such remarks of the Sovereign Pontiff as “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us”. Note that there is no mention of the knowledge of God and divine revelation, which is by the Faith alone. Proselytism is of course nothing other than a pejorative term for missionary work, the effort to convert others to the Faith. This remark was made in response to the atheist`s remark that the Pope would want to convert him if he spoke with him. It is astonishing that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth, would not feel it his solemn obligation, as St. Paul said to St. Timothy, to “preach the word, be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke, with all patience and teaching” (2 Tim 4:2), and that he would not want to convert an atheist, lost in the darkness of his infidelity, but instead would say to him, “The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good”. So everybody`s path leads towards the Good. But the Supreme Good is God Himself, and Our Divine Savior said very clearly “No one comes to the Father but through me” (Jn 14:6). How could there be any truth in the statement that all roads lead to the Good, when Christ is the only way to God the Father?
PRINCIPLE OF MORALITY
The next revolutionary and subjectivist idea discussed concerns the basis of morality. For a Catholic, it is the divine law, as taught us by the Church. Scalfari quotes the Pope as saying that the conscience is autonomous and that everyone must obey his own conscience, to which the Pope had this to say: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place”. So the basis of morality is not obeying the divine law, so as to get to heaven. It is rather to make the world a better place, and everyone can follow his own conscience to do that! Not only is this a purely natural conception of morality, it even evacuates the natural law, the ten commandments. Everybody can thus become judge of his own morality, determine for himself what is good or evil, as our first parents wanted to do in the garden of Eden. And the man who says this, has received from Christ the duty to teach all mankind the supernatural morality which is divinely revealed and objectively true! What a betrayal of his mission! How many people will go away from reading this interview convinced that they can make up their own mind as to what is good or bad?
VATICAN II
Answering the objection that Catholics are a minority, the Pope answered that this is a “strength”, and reiterates his goal in our modern times in the light of Vatican II, repeating once more that it is NOT to convert to the Catholic Faith: “I believe that I have already said that our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope.” Note that there is nothing supernatural in this listening, and that anybody, even without faith, is capable of doing this. He continues:”Vatican II, inspired by Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecuмenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little has been done in that direction. I have the humility and the ambition to want to do something”. Here lies the key to this Papacy. The modern spirit is naturalism, and it is radically opposed to the Church`s mission for 2,000 years. It is modern because it is radically new and different. It is modern because it considers dialogue and ecuмenism as the means to bring about a mutual understanding and peace which has no basis in divine revelation. It is new because it is a betrayal of the Church`s mission to teach and sanctify by the Mass and the sacraments. For nearly 50 years Popes and bishops have done nothing but repeat the words ecuмenism and dialogue, and Francis believes that as yet “very little has been done”. Truly Francis is committed to changing the very nature and mission of the Church.
The interview with Father Antonio Spadaro, S.J., published in America magazine of September 30, is not so shocking in its terminology, but no less so in its message. The key statement is this caricature of the homogenous development of the Faith: “The view of the church`s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong”. No Catholic has ever said that the unchanging solid bastion of the Faith is to be defended without nuance or different understandings, but this statement leads one to believe that if there is such an unchanging bastion, then necessarily there will be no nuance or understanding.
WHICH FAITH?
Likewise does he embrace the modernist caricature of the Faith as an experience: “Ours is not a lab faith, but a journey faith, a historical faith. God has revealed himself as history, not as a compendium of abstract truths.” This is a denial of the necessity of believing in the dogmas of the Faith, which surely are a list of abstract truths that God has revealed, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. This is what he calls a lab faith, because it is scientifically or objectively verifiable. Instead it is our personal history of journey of faith which matters, according to him. His faith is consequently the purely subjectively experiential faith of the modernists so clearly condemned by Saint Pius X.
In the same interview he answers the objection that such a concept is relativism: “Is it relativism (if God is encountered, walking along the path)? Yes, if it is understood as a kind of indistinct pantheism. It is not relativism if it is understood in the biblical sense, that God is always a surprise, so you never know where and how you will find him.” Manifestly, Francis`s distinction does not apply. Pantheism is the identification of God and the creation. It is the denial of a transcendent God. This is not what is in question. When the Pope says that God is a surprise, and you do not know how you will find him, he clearly is speaking of a personal experience, for it is personal experiences that are unpredictable. He is obviously not speaking of a predictable objective, public revealed truth. It is certainly relativism and modernism to speak of the Faith in such a way.
FRANCIS VS TRADITION
Pope Francis`s open disdain for the traditional movement, and for everything that traditionally minded Catholics stand for, is consequently quite evident: “If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal `security`, those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists – they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person`s life. God is in everyone`s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else – God is in this person`s life”.
Again, this paragraph is a profoundly revolutionary statement. Dogmatic certainty is no longer to be found in the Church`s unchanging teaching, but rather in the experience of God in every person`s life. This is radically naturalist, since he explicitly states that God is in the life of persons who refuse to obey Him, keep His commandments, do penance for their sins, and embrace the true Faith. The doctrinal certitude of the traditional Faith must be done away with, and so he describes it with such pejorative terms as `restorationist`, because we believe in maintaining that which has been lost; as `legalist` because we believe in the Church`s laws (such as the right to the traditional Mass, never abrogated), as `wanting everything clear and safe` because we know that peace of soul only comes from the Church`s unchanging Faith, as `static` because we believe that Tradition is a deposit handed down to be retained, as `inward-directed` because we believe in the importance of penance and personal sanctification to save our souls; as an `ideology` because we find there an objective, unshakeable certitude. In saying, to the contrary, that the only dogmatic certainty is experience, the Pope has already condemned himself as a subjectivist and a modernist.
It is consequently not surprising that Pope Francis does not consider relevant Benedict XVI`s preoccupation with the hermeneutics of continuity. He reads everything in terms of experience, and the whole question of continuity with the past or not does not concern him: “The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear; the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today – which was typical of Vatican II – is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.” So, he says, Vatican II is good because it has given a new experience of living the Gospel. It does not matter if it is in continuity or not, so long as it is a “dynamic”, that is an experience. The traditional Mass (Vetus Ordo) is only a good thing because some people like it, but not in itself. Those of us who maintain that it is necessary to retain the traditional Mass to keep and defend the true Faith are consequently guilty of “ideologization” and “exploitation”. Here we find Francis` revolutionary colors clearly declared. He refuses to consider the doctrinal questions at stake.
MORAL CONSEQUENCES
Also scandalous are the consequences in the moral domain of Pope Francis`s refusal to maintain objective truth. Here he sins by omission, failing to teach what souls need to hear to stay in the state of grace and go to heaven. He stated: “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gαy marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.” Since when has anyone in the post-conciliar church spoken much about these things, let alone insisted on them? To the contrary, we are all aware that they are considered taboo. Why? Because no-one has the right to condemn. But these are mortal sins that God and the Church condemn. Catholics and non-Catholics alike need to hear what the Church teaches about them. The Church has the obligatory to stand up firmly against the moral corruption of the world around us, as the early Christians did against paganism. St. Paul does not hesitate to make long lists of vices that he reproves because they are works of the flesh (e.g Gal 5:19-21).
Asked if he approved of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, he refused to say that he condemns it as a perversion of nature, a very grievous offense against Almighty God, but simply answers with another question, and is proud of it: “Tell me; when God looks at a gαy person, does he endorse the existence of that person with love, or reject and condemn the person? We must always consider the person...” Likewise he continued to defend his remarks on the return flight from Rio de Janeiro: “I said that if a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge”. But the person who is speaking is the one person on earth who has the power to lose and to bind, to forgive and not to forgive. It is manifestly obvious that it is the sin that is to be condemned, rather than the sinner, but the sin is condemned so that the sinner can beg forgiveness. This Pope refuses to condemn this unnatural vice, and so the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are now saying that they can be of good will and pleasing to God, whilst practising a vice condemned by Sacred Scripture and by the Church. The refusal to condemn the sin is the ultimate fruit of subjectivism and a betrayal of the Pope`s mission to teach on matters of Faith and morals, which is what proclaiming the Gospel ought to be all about.
Much could also be said on the spiritual consequences of this subjectivism. It is not just a passion for change. In fact, it is the whole of the ascetic life which is undermined: in particular penance, sacrifice, mortification, the Mass and the sacraments, none of which are necessary if everyone is good and walks with God, no matter how great his vices. Listen to this shocking reinterpretation of St. Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits: “The Exercises can be perfectly Ignatian ... without the silence, An interpretation of the Spiritual Exercises that emphasizes asceticism, silence and penance is a distorted one that became widespread even in the Society”. Total nonsense, as anyone who has correctly followed the exercises of St. Ignatius can testify.
There can be no doubt that for Pope Francis the motto would be Nova et Nova: new things and new things, and not Nova et vetera. As for us, in this age of rapid change, let us remain faithful to the unchanging supernatural Faith and Tradition that the Church has passed down to us, and let us refuse to follow Pope Francis in his naturalistic subjectivism that manifests itself in the thirst for change: “I believe”, he told Fr. Spadaro, “that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change”
Father Peter R. Scott
Topic: He is the pope? (Read 845 times)