http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/pope-leo-against-resistance.htm

Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular
"Recognize-and-Resist" Position


Just as the various Semi-Traditionalist "Recognize-and-Resist" camps are revving up their engines to collectively oppose the impending "canonization" of the apostate bishop Karol Wojtyla, otherwise known by his pseudonym "Pope John Paul II", Novus Ordo Watch has bent over backwards to unearth and present two little-known papal docuмents by Pope Leo XIII that absolutely demolish their comfortable position of "having your Pope and beating him too."

The two docuмents we present are two Apostolic Letters written by His Holiness in the 1880s, one addressed to the Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris, the other to the Archbishop of Tours. As far as we know, they have never before been translated into English in their entirety and, except for a few select quotes, are not available on the internet in English at all.

Until now, that is.

We are pleased to present to you first-time-ever full English translations of the following two papal docuмents (click on the titles of each for the text):




Apostolic Letter of His Holiness
Pope Leo XIII to Cardinal Guibert:
EPISTOLA TUA
(June 17, 1885)



pope-leo13-2.jpg


Apostolic Letter of His Holiness
Pope Leo XIII to Archbishop Meignan:
EST SANE MOLESTUM
(Dec. 17, 1888)




These two letters of Pope Leo XIII, who had one of the longest pontificates in the history of the Church (1878-1903), beautifully remind us of the true and truly traditional Catholic position on the authority of the Pope and the local bishops and the proper respect and submission the faithful are required to render them. How different this true teaching is from the attitudes instilled in people's minds ad nauseam by the self-appointed "Recognize-and-Resist" clerics and even lay pundits, who absolutely insist that the "Pope" and "bishops" of the Novus Ordo Sect are genuine Catholic shepherds and yet act as though these "rightful shepherds" were somehow subject to them instead of the other way around!

These pseudo-Traditionalists reject just about everything that comes from these "legitimate authorities", including teaching on Faith and morals, disciplinary laws, liturgical rites, and even decrees of sainthood. In truth -- and all who are familiar with Traditionalism know this -- they have essentially separated themselves from the teaching, governance, and liturgy of the Novus Ordo Church and are "doing their own thing" on the side, yet never wavering in their verbal recognition of these men as the rightful Catholic shepherds. This, ladies and gentlemen, they believe to be the only true Catholic position, yet it is the textbook definition of schism!

As Fr. Ignatius Szal pointed out in a theological dissertation published in the 1940's, one essential ingredient to true and proper schism is that the schismatic, in spite of his disobedience, "must recognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that obedience is due the Roman Pontiff” (Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics [CUA Press, 1948], p. 2).

Does this not sound exactly like the "Recognize-and-Resist" position of the SSPX, SSPX-Marian Corps, The Angelus, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, The Fatima Crusader, etc.? And yet, it is not a Catholic position, and the two Apostolic Letters of Pope Leo XIII we are now presenting underscore this point even further.

Here are some select few highlights of the two papal docuмents to whet your appetite:

Pope Leo XIII:
•"To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor." (Epistola Tua)

•"...it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed." (Epistola Tua)
•"That obligation, if it is generally incuмbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists.... The task pertaining to them ... is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected." (Epistola Tua)
•"No, it cannot be permitted that laymen who profess to be Catholic should go so far as openly to arrogate to themselves in the columns of a newspaper, the right to denounce, and to find fault, with the greatest license and according to their own good pleasure, with every sort of person, not excepting bishops, and think that with the single exception of matters of faith they are allowed to entertain any opinion which may please them and exercise the right to judge everyone after their own fashion." (Est Sane Molestum)
•"...to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff...." (Est Sane Molestum)




Anyone who reads these docuмents will easily see how the teaching of Pope Leo XIII is simply not compatible with the False Resistance position of the Society of St. Pius X and other pseudo-Traditionalist organizations and individuals. The idea that the Pope -- remember, the Resisters emphatically assert that Francis is the Pope -- can canonize someone a saint, to be venerated and imitated by the whole Church, and this canonization is then dismissed as false by individual clergy and even laymen, who alone know the "truth" of the matter, is preposterous. And it is most certainly not something that Pope Leo, per the above docuмents, would ever tolerate. (More on that, though, in late April, when Francis once again proves he cannot be the Pope of the Catholic Church by "infallibly" declaring the Modernists Karol Wojtyla and Angelo Roncalli to be saints.)

It is high time for everyone to realize that there is no "middle ground" in fighting the errors of the New Church. "He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth," Our Blessed Lord warned (Lk 11:23). Get off the fence! The Vatican II Sect is either the true Catholic Church founded by Christ, or it is not. If it is, you must submit and adhere to it in all things and cling to it like a child clings to his mother. But if it is not, then it is a false church, a diabolical imitation of the Catholic Church, the "operation of error" sent by God in punishment for our sins, "to believe lying" (2 Thess 2:10).

What more does it take to see this?!

"Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities" (Apocalypse 18:4-5).



Related Links:
•Clear, Succinct, Compelling: The Syllogism of Sedevacantism (Video)
•Why Sedevacantism? A Priest Explains & Answers Objections (Video)
•Response to Fr. Francois Chazal on Sedevacantism
•Novus Ordo Watch Response to Bp. Williamson on Sedevacantism (1)
•Bp. Sanborn responds to Bp. Williamson on Sedevacantism
•Bp. Sanborn addresses Charge of Sedevacantist "Pope Sifting"
•The "Bad Popes" Argument
•Numerous Popes before Vatican II warned of the Freemasonic Plot against the Church
•Sedevacantism: A Quick Primer
•Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope [PDF]
•Opinionism - Is the Pope Question just a Matter of "Opinion"?
•The "Canonization" of John Paul II: Decision Time for Traditionalists
•Eclipse of the Church: What happened after the death of Pope Pius XII?
•Mgr. Fulton Sheen in 1948: Satan "will set up a Counter-Church which will be the Ape of the Catholic Church"
•Fr. Sylvester Berry warns in 1927: "Satan will set up a False Church"
•Fr. Berry in 1921: "Satan will Persecute the Papacy"

Quote

Semi-Traditionalist

Quote

pseudo-Traditionalists

Quote

pseudo-Traditionalist

Stop posting this dogmatic sedevacantist garbage from Novus Ordo watch which shows that they really are a "schism house" as Matthew calls MHFM for rejecting communion with true Catholics and calling them names. So only the sedevacantists are true Catholics? You must realize how offensive this is to all those who are not sedevacantists (over 90 percent of the traditional Catholic world) and yet you post this on a non-sedevacantist forum.

The point I think they make on Novus Ordo Watch are:

1.  It is Divine Law that a Public heretic cannot be Pope.

2.  One who maintains, V2, the new Sacraments, the new Mass, the new Canon Law and the new "saints" cannot be Pope.

3.  Bergolio does all the above.  Therefore . . .

The idea that we all are trying to be Catholics but can be confused, I am sure, has not slipped past whoever runs the NOW site IMO.

It is a dogma that we must obey a valid Pope on all the things he binds on the Church.  Number 2 is bound on the Church if Bergolio is Pope.

I'm speaking in the objective realm here.

All will agree that Bergolio is either Pope or not.  He can't both be Pope and not a Pope.  So objectively there is no "opinion" he is either Pope or not.  All who know what the Catholic Church teaches on the Papacy will agree that, objectively, our salvation depends on whether we accept what a valid Pope binds on the Church, which includes Councils, Sacraments, Liturgy, Canon Law and Saints.  If one who purports to be a valid Pope binds on the Church that which cannot be bound by a valid Pope he cannot be a valid Pope.  Those are not just words but are objective facts.  They cannot be denied by those familiar with the teaching on the Papacy, especially since the Vatican Council [Vatican I].

Now some in fact are not familiar with the teaching on the papacy and are not culpably ignorant of that teaching, so everything else being equal they would be true Catholics.  Who ever runs the site is obviously more knowledgeable than I am so I am sure he does not miss that fact.  I believe he has a contact on his site where he or they can be contacted directly.  Ask him.

Regarding the question of "you cannot bind the conscience to SV" etc. Here too distinctions are necessary. NO ONE is saying, "I bind your conscience to SV -- you have to be SV because I say so." Show me where he says that on his site.  That would be binding someone's conscience through non-existent authority. Of course that's wrong and cannot be done, but I also don't know of anyone doing it.

However, this doesn't mean that SV itself isn't binding on one's conscience. It is very much binding OF ITSELF as soon as one realizes its truth, just like any other fact is binding once it is understood.  (Do you understand this point?  There is a true conclusion on the topic.  If we have the means to do the research and the intellectual capacity to accept the conclusion and ability to make proper distinctions, this last is sorely lacking among many common Catholics, then it becomes binding.  Once we no longer can be excused with inculpable ignorance it is binding.  This point should be readily granted.)

The binding nature of SV arises not from some authoritative pronouncement by NOW or SSPX, but from the fact that IT ALONE can reconcile the empirical facts with Catholic teaching. Again we are speaking in the objective realm.  Subjectively some may not get it through no fault of their own.  In other words, the absence of any other theologically sound solution is what renders sedevacantism binding on the conscience objectively (and subjectively to all who understand the facts and the position).

Lastly, regarding "leaving it in suspense". One can indeed say, "I do not know if Francis is Pope, I cannot decide." OK, that is possible, but only in theory. In practice, you MUST decide. That is simply the nature of the law of non-contradiction: you either adhere to the pre-V2 or the post-V2 teachings. You either go to an "approved Mass" (of the V2 church) or you don't (subjectively one could be ignorant of the fact that one cannot go to a Mass not approved by the Pope I grant). But apart from that, one way or another, in the practical order, you ARE making a decision.

So, while suspending judgment is possible, in theory, it is not possible to not act. One way or another, you ARE acting.  Some might in good conscience go to both the new and the true Mass.  But again we are talking in the subjective realm and in regards to ignorance.  All good Catholics on this forum want the truth and are willing to act accordingly.  Whether a purported pope is Pope or not is not a matter of indifference.  Whether, in the objective realm, we are damned for disobeying what a valid Pope binds on the Church or not is not a matter of indifference.

In many, perhaps most, cases, the R&Rs basically ignore (disbelieve) Catholic teaching on the papacy and the Magisterium. While one can sympathize with the struggle each one of us goes through in trying to make sense of this mess, that does not mean that one can cease to profess the true Faith and still be a member of the Church. But even more so, the sin of schism. It would seem (in the objective realm, I hope the potential objectors are making this distinction) that one who accepts one as Pope but refuses to submit to him has a schismatic attitude.  One cannot separate the question of the Pope from the Faith, certainly not since Vatican I, since submission to the Pope is a dogma and necessary for salvation.

The idea (think 1910 or any time in Catholic history when a valid Pope was unquestionably ruling as is maintained by the R&R's now) of "we just keep the Faith and let God sort out the Pope issue" (it doesn't matter whether Pope Pius X is Pope or not) seems like an unCatholic attitude for one who understands the theology behind the Papacy.

I could see where that would make sense. On the other hand I believe you could keep the Faith and still be Catholic while not being sure.  Also not being sure one way or the other through no fault of your own is far different than insisting that he is Pope while acting as if he is not, which while subjectively not preventing one from being Catholic, objectively seems like a very unCatholic attitude.  I still have not heard a convincing argument as to how "He is definitely the Pope but I am not going to submit to him" manifests a Catholic attitude.

I keep stating that this is the case for one who understands the Papacy as their is a distinction to be made between a bad Pope giving a command to an individual or group and what he binds on the whole Church.  Of course the people unable or unwilling to make this distinction as is if there is no difference between the two scenarios and who quote Bellarmine against himself as if he does not understand what he says or means in the two distinct instances will object but objections do not untruth the truth.

For the Catholic it matters very much whether a purported Pope is an actual Pope or not as our salvation depends on submitting to what a valid Pope binds on the Church.  Subjectively, of course, and I believe NOW will readily grant, that one can err in good faith on the issue.  If one has proof that NOW denies this point I would like to see it and I will contact the site myself and speak to the person.  Of course the basic minimum one must believe, and profess, in order to have the Faith is the existence of God, that He rewards and punishes, and possibly the Incarnation and Holy Trinity.  But objectively one cannot be Catholic if he knows Papal theology and rejects it, and or knows a valid Pope must be obeyed in regards to what he binds on the Church and refuses to obey one he believes is a valid Pope.  If one realizes he is disobeying what has been bound on the Church by one he believes is a valid Pope one must rectify the issue one way or the other to the degree it is possible for one to do so.  One cannot just avoid the issue and hope it works out, for fear of the answer and how this might change their life and knock them out of their comfort zone.  (All should readily agree with that).

I don't think he (I keep saying "he" here because I am not politically correct, plus I doubt it is a woman anyway) denies one can keep the Faith if one sincerely does not know whether he is Pope or not or sincerely thinks he is through no fault of his own.  It would be a good question to ask him.  It is incuмbent on us to try to resolve the issue to the degree our state in life allows IMO.

But the real thing, I believe, is that we have encountered anti-SVs who are intellectually dishonest.  They simply do not want admit SV can be true, Divine Law be damned.  Why?  Any number of reasons I guess, money, many children with only the SSPX available, the possibility of being kicked out of the SSPX if you go public with your opinion.  But it is those types I believe he calls semi-trads and not really Catholics.  Because they KNOW divine law teaches that a public heretic cannot be Pope.  They know that a valid Pope cannot bind on earth what cannot be bound in Heaven.  In discussions they do not respond to or grant these points but simply move to other objections.  Some writers in anti-SV publications are CLEARLY biased and willfully blind on the topic.  They will have to answer for in regards to themselves and those they mislead.  Others are afraid of the answer and willfully keep themselves in suspense.

I do not think he is talking about those sincerely confused, through no fault of their own, or who err on this topic, through no fault of their own.  But it would be good to contact the site and ask him.  It is so easy to make conclusions about people based upon feelings but if you asked him directly your conclusion about the views of the site owner could end up being quite different.

A lot of this comes down to sincerity and whether one is culpably ignorant of things pertaining to the Papacy or not.  Then we can apply this to alot of things such as what if one sincerely does not believe in the Immaculate Conception through no fault of his own?  The Resurrection?  Infants and those with extreme mental disabilities aside.  How far do we reduce these hypotheticals?  How ignorant can a trained Priest in the SSPX or a lawyer who has the undeniable teaching on the papacy presented to him be?

The very sad fact of the matter is, and my wife can vouch for this, is that R&Rs do not believe in (or even know about, thanks to the SSPX) true Catholic teaching on the papacy. They believe the Pope is not much different from the protestant pastor - when he says something that's true and useful, you agree; when he doesn't, you ignore or resist. That's it.

Say it was 1910.  Could one be a Catholic if they did not accept the Vatican (1) Council, the Sacraments, Mass, Canon Law, Saints under Pius X?  Could we decide we cannot, should not or will not (or it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to) accept the 1917 Code of Canon Law for one reason or another or a Saint canonized by Pius X?

A valid Pope is prevented by the Holy Ghost from binding on the Church that which is sinful.

Does anyone think Pope Leo XIII would be okay with the ecuмenism as practiced today in the Novus Ordo?

Would Pope Leo XIII be "on board" with the concept that other churches have the means of salvation?

Or would Pope Leo XIII tremble with the fear that perhaps Satan, after being given the 100 years of time, actually succeeded?

Are these question meant to refute the SV position?

As noted in the thread we do not doubt that everyone is trying their best.  Of course by "everyone" we mean everyone who is trying their best are trying their best.  We don't doubt that some are not trying their best.

But the discussion is in the objective realm.  What is the truth of the situation.  Not whether people who are sincere are good or bad or nice or mean but whether they are correct.  Some sincere are correct others are not.  A sincere person who drinks arsenic thinking it was orange juice is sincerely dead regardless of his sincerity.  

Let us keep the topic in the objective realm.  

Hopefully we agree that the willfully blind (who mislead the sincere with non-Catholic misnomer that it is okay to disobey legitimate authority in regards to what they bind on the Church) are not to be applauded for remaining in their ignorance.  

Clearly in times of normality is this to apply. (Yoda voice)

But when the shepherds are wolves, our job is to refuse them.

Let the fathers speak:

It is a commandment of the Lord that we should not be silent when the Faith is in peril. So, when it is a matter of the Faith, one cannot say, ‘What am I? A priest, a ruler, a soldier, a farmer, a poor man? I have no say or concern in this matter.’ Alas! the stones shall cry out, and you remain silent and unconcerned? St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle Eighty-One, PG 99:1321

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 anathema. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be anathema’ [Galatians 1:8-9]. I shall judge the bishop and the layperson. The sheep are rational and not irrational, so that no layman may ever say that, ‘I am a sheep, and not a shepherd, and I give no account of myself, but the shepherd shall see to it, and he alone shall pay the penalty for me.’ For even as the sheep that follows not the good shepherd shall fall to the wolves unto its own destruction, so too it is evident that the sheep that follows the evil shepherd shall acquire death; for he shall utterly devour it. Therefore, it is required that we flee from destructive shepherds Apostolic Constitutions, 10:19, PG 1:633

Not only if one possesses rank or knowledge is one obliged to strive to speak and to teach the doctrines of orthodoxy, but even if one be a disciple in rank, one is obliged to speak the truth boldly and openly Letter Two (Book Two) to Monastics Saint Theodore the Studite, PG 99:1120b

Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What pious man will keep silence, or who will remain altogether at peace? For silence means consent. Oftentimes war is known to be praiseworthy, and a battle proves to be better than a peace that harms the soul. For it is better to separate ourselves from them who do not believe aright than to follow them in evil concord, and by our union with them separate ourselves from God St. Meletius the Confessor