Feeds:
Posts
Comments

1. Since you’re all divided in faith over doctrines and morals, how is your religion the Catholic Church when the first mark and article of faith of oneness identifying the Catholic Church is missing? [1]

2. What did Pope Pius IX mean when he stated:

 “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.”(Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)???

 

Footnote

[1] The Vatican 2 popes teach that non-Catholics and non-Catholic religions form the Church of Christ and Bergoglio condemns the death penalty as immoral.

That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint)

Are Protestants Christians and Members of the Church of Christ?

A Right to the Christian Name

‘Pope’ Francis’ Heresy on the Death Penalty

“While, however, man is called to share directly in the affairs of the state, female influence can be ordinarily exerted upon such matters only indirectly. Consequently, it is only in exceptional cases that in Christian kingdoms the direct sovereignty is placed in the hands of woman, as is shown by the women who have ascended thrones.”

“I. Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works: “Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators.” Public offices are those in which public authority is exercised; civil offices, those connected otherwise with municipal affairs. The reason given by canonists for this prohibition is not the levity, weakness, or fragility of the female sex, but the preservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to woman.”

Pope Leo XIII confirmed the Catholic Encyclopedia’s very canonists:

“Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.” (Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor) # 42 1891)

Now if women have been prohibited to hold public office, because of the preservation of the modesty and dignity of the woman, what’s the implication when women do hold public offices as we see today, which liberals defend as the praiseworthy advancement of women?

It means the preservation of modesty and dignity for those women is lost. Does modesty and dignity of women not concern morality? 

Women are not even to be dressed as men unless there’s an extraordinary circumstance. Necessity excuses from the law.

Many who identify as Catholics are also promoting the modernist idea that it’s not immodest and undignified for  women to hold public office just as they promote immodest and undignified clothing, especially the kind we see in the hot month of July. 

Moral theologians, Frs. John McHugh and Charles Callan write in their “Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities”:

“Women should not be compelled to take up an occupation unsuited to their sex.” 

The theologians are not talking about the capabilities of women. Some women can be stronger than some men. Some women are much more intelligent than some men and can make excellent decisions. They have the ability to do most every job a man can do and do it better in many cases. The issue is not about the capability of women. The pope, canonists, and moral theologians can only mean occupations that would not preserve the modesty and dignity peculiar to women.

Those who point to Christian queens as proof women can hold public office and have authority over men make a false conclusion.

Queens are not occupations that women go out and apply for. Neither is the mother who may order and command her adult son still living at home. Queenship and motherhood require a certain type of authority unlike any other authority, which exists out of necessity. What public office requires a woman out of necessity?

Today is the feast of St. Elizabeth of Portuagal. She was a model Christian queen. After the king’s death, she retired to a monastery of the Poor Clares and joined the Third Order of St. Francis. Her whole life was devoted to the sick and poor. Her acts as queen were not commander but as servant and peacemaker.

Saint Elizabeth of Aragon in the Alvalade battlefield“, by Roque Gameiro, in Quadros da História de Portugal (“Pictures of the History of Portugal”, 1917).

In defending the morality of women holding public office, some Catholics turn to Pope Pius XII’s teaching on women [1]. The pope, however, never taught that women can hold public office. He taught that they can have political careers as members of public assemblies. Public assemblies can be nothing more than a gathering of citizens to voice opinions and vote. That’s an indirect participation in politics, a far cry from holding the position of president, governor, judge, magistrate, sheriff, military and police officer, lawyer, etc.

The Church has the 2000 year practice that women can’t hold public office, because of the perservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to women. The Church Fathers are universal on the role of women in society. Popes don’t have the authority to say after 2000 years it’s modest and dignified for women to hold public office, because the culture says so. IT’S ALWAYS BEEN FORBIDDEN and ALWAYS WILL BE! 

Accepted norms in our heathenistic world doesn’t make them okay or valid. We are not bound in obedience to an invalid civil authority. We may cooperate with the evil materially, but God only requires our obedience to lawful authority.

There’s a flawed argument that says the 1917 Code of Law must spell out that women can’t hold public office. Actually, it’s the other way around. Because it has always and everywhere been forbidden for women to hold public office (because of the modesty and dignity of women) there would have to be a canon law that would permit women to hold public office, but alas, canon law can’t permit a cultural revolutionary immoral practice. [2] It would be an argument against the Catholic Church if canon law permitted an immoral practice as morally acceptable.

It’s been argued that popes have never specifically condemned it. Therefore, it may be tolerated as permissible. For instance, when Jeannette Rankin was elected to Congress in 1916 followed by other women entering public office, no popes condemn the election and practice as immoral.

The problem with this argument is the assumption that there’s nothing wrong with something, because it’s not been specifically condemned by the Church. Throughout history, we see popes not condemning evil and immoral practices for years and there are several reasons for this. Popes may have been busy with other problems, or they could have been lazy, or they were just ignorant. For instance, the deposing of popes by emperors and empresses wasn’t condemned for hundreds of years as evil and wrong. The popes actually capitulated. Some unjust wars were never condemned. Pope Martin V didn’t condemn the English invasion of France. It was Heaven, which intervened with St. Joan of Arc to inspire the French to fight away the English. [4]

It wasn’t until modern times that women actually became involved in holding public offices. It’s completely revolutionary. Pope St. Pius X was the last pope to really stamp out modernists who wanted to introduce it. His successors were much more lax and did very little to nothing to stop them. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote in his diary about Pope St. Pius X’s successors:

“I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts. Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent. [Fr.] Ed Hanahoe, the only intelligent and faithful member of [Cardinal] Bea’s secretariat has been left off the list of the periti. Such idiots as [Mgr. John S.] Quinn and the sneak [Fr. Frederick] McManus have been put on. [Fr. George] Tavard is there as an American, God help us. From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church. The thoughts of many are being revealed. As one priest used to say, to excuse his own liberalism, which, in the bottom of his heart he knew was wrong, ‘for the last few decades the tendency in Rome has been to favor the liberals.’ That is the policy now. We can only do what we can to overt an ever more complete disloyalty to Christ.” (Oct. 19, 1962) [5]

Is there any wonder popes didn’t condemn the feminism after Pope St. Pius X?

In 1906, Pope St. Pius X told an Austrian feminist, “Women electors, women deputies? Oh, no!…Women in Parliaments! That is all we need! The men have already caused enough confusion there! Imagine what would happen if there were women there!” (Hause & Kenny, ‘The development of the Catholic Women’s Suffrage Movement’, pp. 11-30)

In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal,” said the Pope [St. Pius X], “and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.” (NYT April 22, 1909)

Sadly many Catholics think women are man’s equal. They’ll say I Timothy 2:12-13 refers only to the home and Church, while everywhere else women can rule men. Theoretically, it would mean that women can rule the whole world by holding all places of authority, except of course, the home and Church. What absurdity! The home and the Church are the perfect models for society. Such cultural “Catholics” take the separation of Church and state to whole new level.

Besides, the requirement of the wife to be subordinate in the home doesn’t mean merely in the house, but in society as a whole. It would be impossible to be subordinate to the husband and his superior in society. To be subordinate to the husband means everywhere at all times.

“As Christ is the head of the Church, and so also the husband is superior to the wife in authority (Eph., v. 23).” [3]

Is the Church ever head of Christ? It would be impossible for a wife to ever hold public office and fulfill the role of wife. Does the Church only obey Christ in Church but in society Christ may have to obey the Church? This is precisely the implication of the modernist’s argument. It’s totally absurd!

The principle extends to unmarried women, too, “For Adam was first formed; then Eve (I Tim. 2:13.)” St. Paul’s natural law argument transcends time, culture and marriage. Adam is not just Eve’s superior as husband, but as a man to a woman.

 

 

Footnotes

[1] Papal Directives For The Woman Of Today – Papal Encyclicals

[2] That a contrary custom may make another custom ineffective, is evident; for custom is law, and therefore, as a law is revoked by a contrary law, so also a custom may be revoked by a contrary custom. Only we must notice that the contrary custom must fully cover the old custom and be vested with the requisites set forth above. As to the effect which a contrary law exerts upon a custom, the canon says that it does not revoke a custom unless it contains an express clause to that effect. (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW – THE REV. P. CHARLES AUGUSTINE O.S.B., D.D.)

[3] Moral Theology by Charles J. Callan and John A. McHugh – Free Ebook (gutenberg.org)

[4] St. Joan of Arc wore men’s clothing out of necessity and was never a commander of the French army. She was more like a mascot carrying the banner, fighting, and leading the way like a fearless marine private hitting the beach at Normandy. She relayed Heaven’s commands as a messenger, not as commander. 

[5] Explosive! The Personal Diaries of Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton – Modernism & Vatican II – Novus Ordo Watch

 

My favorite book of all time is probably “Purgatory – Explained by the Lives and Legends of the Saints.”

No book has affected my life more than this one book. From time to time, I’ll pick it up and read it just to find that I’ve become too complacent in my spiritual life. Reading this book really helps to keep me in check and get back on track if needed. 

On Father’s Day, last Sunday, I opened the book and turned to an unforgettable story found in chapter 31 on page 95.

It’s about scandal.

Father Rossignoli tells a story about a famous painter in his Merveilles du Purgatoire. He writes:

“A painter of great skill and otherwise exemplary life had once made a painting not at all comformable to the strict rules of Christian modesty. It was one of those paintings which, under the pretext of being works of art, are found in the best families, and the sight of which causes the loss of so many souls.”

Before the painter died, he had spent his last years painting religious art and bequeathed all his earnings to a monastery, which was a large sum of money.

He died in “pious sentiments.”

Afterwards, he appeared in flames to a Religious and relayed his terrible fate. He tells of an immodest picture that he had painted years earlier and states,

“When I appeared before the tribunal of the Sovereign Judge, a crowd of accusers came to give evidence against me. They declared that they had been excited to improper thoughts and evil desires by a picture, the work of my hand. In consequence of those bad thoughts some were in Purgatory, others in Hell. The latter cried for vengeance, saying that, having been the cause of their eternal perdition, I deserved, at least, the same punishment.Then the Blessed Virgin and the saints whom I had glorified by my pictures took up my defence. They represented to the Judge that that unfortunate painting had been the work of youth, and of which I had repented ; that I had repaired it afterwards by religious objects which had been a source of edification to souls. In consideration of these and other reasons, the Sovereign Judge declared that, on account of my repentance and my good works, I should be exempt from damnation; but at the same time, He condemned me to these flames until that picture should be burned, so that it could no longer scandalise any one.”

The painter begged the Religious to find the owner of the picture and tell him what’s happened and how the picture must be destroyed. He relayed how the owner will lose his 2 children on account of owning the picture and that he will die a premature death if he refused to destroy the picture.

The picture was destroyed and the 2 children died as was told. The author writes about the incident as a whole:

“If such are the consequences of an immodest picture, what, then, will be the punishment of the still more disastrous scandals resulting from bad books, bad papers, bad schools, and bad conversations ? Vce mundo a scandalis / Vce homini illi per quern scandalum venit ! — ‘Woe to the world because of scandals ! Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh ! ‘ (Matt. 18:7).”

When I first read this in the mid-1990’s or so, I had remembered drawing an immodest picture of a celebrity from an album cover in 1985, which I destroyed immediately after reading this story.

I’ve been thinking about the story all week and last night, I was thinking about all the bad movies and pictures made by celebrities. What damage they’ve caused me personally just in the numbness in my thinking. I’m outside all day and the immodesty is everywhere and sometimes I don’t even notice just how evil it truly is. How terrible!

What will be the fate of all these celebrities if they are saved at all? You can’t destroy all the copies that have been distributed over the years including the internet. I know a famous Catholic celebrity with some very immodest material. What can he do? How can he repair the damage he’s done now?

I know what we can do. Stop wearing immodest clothing. Get rid of the shorts, short skirts, and tanks, and especially the yoga pants!

Too rigid? I seem to remember reading how Fatima’s Jacinta Marto was in the hospital shortly before she died and one of the nurses had a  somewhat revealing outfit. She told the nurse that many souls go to hell for dressing immodestly as the nurse was dressed. This was around 1920. How much worse is it now in 2021?

Too rigid? Only a lost soul would say such a thing. Learn the lesson of the painter once in Purgatory and amend your life now!

We are in my favorite month of the year. In June, the days are the longest, work is plentiful, the first batch of honey is ready to be harvested, and the delicious tart cherries, blueberries, strawberries, mulberries, etc are ready to be picked and eaten. Most importantly, this is the month of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

In honor of Our Lord and the Catholic Church, I designed a banner and made bumper stickers out of it. They come in two sizes. Small ones are roughly 3.5 by 7 inches and the large ones are 7 by 14 inches. The actual stickers are much brighter and cleaner than pictures shown below.

If you are interested in having one for your car or truck, you may email me at catholicwarrior@juno.com for pricing, which will vary depending where you live.

 

 

“Extreme Unction” part of The Seven Sacraments by Rogier van der Weyden (1445-1450)

The most important moment of your life is arguably the moment of death. Your eternal destiny is determined by the state of your soul at that moment. Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Extreme Unction or Last Rites for those sick and dying. However, the Vatican 2 religion has changed the sacrament to nothing more than a blessing for the sick and changed both the matter and form of the sacrament. It appears to be no longer valid. This is absolutely tragic for those ignorant Catholics who need this invaluable sacrament.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a wonderful explanation of the doctrine, power, and effects of this awesome sacrament. [1] Also, the late Fr. Coomaraswamy MD wrote a nice piece on Extreme Unction from which I used to write this study.

From the very beginning since St. James’ explanation in Holy Writ, it has ever been the custom to employ pure unadulterated olive oil, sometimes with a mixture of balm, water, or wine depending on which Catholic rite that’s used. This oil is blessed by the Bishop at the magnificent Mass of Maundy Thursday in Holy Week, a Mass so sacred that the Bishop is traditionally attended and assisted by twelve priests, seven deacons, and seven sub-deacons in order to say it properly. The bishop blesses three oils: Oil of Catechumens (Oleum Catechumenorum O.C. or Oleum Sanctorum), Oil of the Infirm (Oleum Infirmorum O.I.), and Holy Chrism (Sacrum Chrisma S.C.). The prayer reads: Emitte, quaesumus Domine, Spiritum sanctum tuum Paraclitum de coelis in hanc pinguedinem olivae, quam de viridi ligno producere dignatus es and refectionem mentis et corporis…(“Send forth we pray, Your Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, from heaven into this rich substance of oil…”)

Pope Eugene IV’s 1439 Bull “Exultate Deo” of the Council of Florence declared that the matter for Extreme Unction is “olive oil.”

Fr. Nicholas Halligan, O.P. tells us on p. 344 in his 1963 book, Administration of the Sacraments, (which is an instruction for priests):

The valid matter of Extreme Unction is olive oil duly blessed for this purpose by a bishop or priest who has obtained the faculty to do so by the Apostolic See. Although for lawfulness it must be pure, an admixture of extraneous matter renders it invalid, if it is no longer olive oil. If the supply of blessed oil (O.I.) becomes too diminished, other olive oil may be added, even repeatedly, but in a less quantity. Although it is not certain that the oil of the infirm alone renders the administration of Extreme Unction valid, in practice and outside of necessity the proper oil of this sacrament is to be used. In a case of necessity and in the absence of the proper oil (O.I.), another sacred oil (S.C.) may be employed under the condition (si haec est materia valida), but the sacrament must be conditionally repeated with the proper oil.

The matter specified by Paul VI in his new Vatican 2 Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick (promulgated November 30, 1972) is the oil of any plant. The new blessing of the oil, which may come from any plant, no longer invokes the Holy Ghost. It reads,May your blessing come upon all who are anointed with this oil, that they may be freed from pain and illness and made well again in body and mind and soul.” Interestingly, the blessing is also devoid of “forgiveness of sins” and emphasizes pain and illness only. One might interpret illness of soul as sinfulness, but it doesn’t actually say it.

It wasn’t enough for Paul VI to change the matter of the sacrament. He also changed the form as he did with all the other sacraments.

The traditional form of the sacrament reads, PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM, INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS QUIDQUID PER… DELIQUISTI(“Through this Holy Unction or oil, and through the great goodness of His mercy, may God pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed [by evil use of sight – smell, touch etc. – depending on which organ is anointed.”)

The new Vatican 2 rite of Paul VI reads, PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM ADIUVET TE DOMINUS GRATIA SPRITUS SANCTI, UT A PECCATIS LIBERATUM TE SOLVAT ADQUE PROPITIUS ALLEVIAT(on the forehead – “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit”, and on the hands – “May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up”)

Since Pope Leo XIII declared, “All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify,” it’s reasonable to presume that “INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS” (God pardon thee), “QUIDQUID DELIQUISTI” (whatever sins) and “SANCTAM UNCTINEM” (Holy Unction)are the essential words.

The new form omits all these essential words, which leads to a different meaning.

Paul VI specifically forbade the use of the traditional rite after Jan. 1, 1974 in his Apostolic Constitution. [2]

Traditionally, the sacrament is executed very reverently, as the priest carries Our Lord in his pyx and only speaks when necessary. Lighted candles and bells are used accompanied by an acolyte. Catholics keep silent, kneel, and pray as the priest passes by. On arrival, the priest will pray, hear confession if possible, and administer the Viaticum. He will pronounce an exorcism over the patient and invoked the Holy Trinity, Our Lady, Angels and Archangels, saints, etc., and anoint the patient with the holy oils with the prescribed prayers, who will then return as quickly as possible to the sacristy.

Not so in the new rite.

Priests are no longer required to wear priestly vestments, no longer are reverent or silent. Rarely if ever are candles and bells or acolytes used. The Confiteor is omitted along with other traditional prayers. “Catholics” no longer are silent nor do they kneel before Our Lord and priest. On arrival, hands are laid and the anointing is limited to forehead and hands. Afterwards, all run down for coffee and donuts in under 15 minutes, much like any weekend novus ordo mass.

In the traditional rite, the priest will administer the sacrament conditionally to a person who had already died within a period of three hours. The reason is that we don’t know precisely when the soul leaves the body.

In the new rite, the instruction says that, “when a priest is called to attend those who are already dead, he should not administer the Sacrament of anointing. Instead, he should pray for them, asking that God forgive their sins and graciously receive them into the Kingdom.”

It should be noted that the Church has never had any objection to blessing the sick. The Roman ritual contains three such blessings. One of those blessings uses a relic of the true Cross in honor of St. Benedict and St. Maurice. These three blessings prove that Extreme Unction is not just another blessing as in the new rite.

I’ve personally heard Fr. Malachi Martin repeatedly say in public interviews that the new rite is a joke and confers nothing. It came sort of as a shock to me at the time. Now that I’ve held to the position of sedevacantism for the past 2 decades and looking back, I’m surprised the Vatican 2 religion even has an “anointing of the sick” for the dying. They act as if everyone goes to heaven anyway, except maybe the really, really bad people, like the Hitler’s and Stalin’s. 

In the 1970’s, Hutton Gibson gave the following explanation of Paul VI’s “sacrament”:

According to the new rite “the priest takes the oil and anoints the sick person on the forehead” (new, perhaps for professional wrestlers who head-butt) “and the hands” (and that’s all) “saying: ‘Through this holy anointing and his great love for you, may the Lord fill you with the power of His Holy Spirit’ (This approximates the new “ordinations”.) ‘Amen. In his goodness may He ease your suffering and extend his saving grace to you, freed from all the power of sin. Amen.’ There follow the prayer best suited to the person’s condition,”* (Now I lay me down to sleep?) the Lord’s Prayer recited by all, and the blessing. Try as I will, I can determine no specific intent or form in this new “celebration.” [3]

I have from a reliable source that the late Most Rev. Bishop Richard Ackerman C.S.Sp., S.T.D. (notable Vatican 2 conservative and Bishop of Covington, KY and part founder of the Sisters of St. Joseph the Worker who live and work in my hometown Versailles, Ky) refused the new rite and requested that Fr. Joseph Greenwell, a SSPV sedevacantist priest, to administer the traditional rite. The bishop obviously knew how ineffective the new rite is and wanted no part of it.

Lastly, my own priest Fr. Michael Oswalt has told us some actual miracles he’s witnessed from the administration of Extreme Unction. For instance, after Father gave the sacrament to a person about to die, the patient immediately got up and remained physically healthy.

The bottom line is that the new rite is highly doubtful, which means Catholics are forbidden to take part in it. The traditional rite is not only the rite used from time immemorial; it has proven itself effective with miracles.

What’s more, the Catholic Church can’t give doubtful sacraments, which proves the Vatican 2 religion is not the Catholic Church. The Vatican 2 religion is an evil counterfeit religion that’s not interested in saving souls, since it already holds in practice that nearly everyone is saved. Its administration of the “sacrament” is merely a theatrical performance that has little to no meaning.

 

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Extreme Unction (newadvent.org)

EXTREME UNCTION (the-pope.com)

[2]  The Sacrament Of Anointing Of The Sick – Papal Encyclicals

[3] Hutton Gibson – Is the Pope Catholic – PDFCOFFEE.COM

Communium Rerum – On St. Anselm of Aosta – Pope Pius X – April 21, 1909

More bitter shall be the consequences of these threats when the vices of society are being multiplied, when the sin of rulers and of the people consists especially in the exclusion of God and in rebellion against the Church of Christ: that double social apostasy which is the deplorable fount of anarchy, corruption, and endless misery for the individual and for society.

Editae Saepe – On St. Charles Borromeo – Pope Pius X – May 26, 1910

9. This wonderful working of Divine Providence in the Church’s program of restoration was seen with the greatest clarity and was given as a consolation for the good especially in the century of Saint Charles Borromeo. In those days passions ran riot and knowledge of the truth was almost completely twisted and confused. A continual battle was being waged against errors. Human society, going from bad to worse, was rushing headlong into the abyss. Then those proud and rebellious men came on the scene who are “enemies of the cross of Christ . . .Their god is the belly…they mind the things of earth.”[18] These men were not concerned with correcting morals, but only with denying dogmas. Thus they increased the chaos. They dropped the reins of law, and unbridled licentiousness ran wild. They despised the authoritative guidance of the church and pandered to the whims of the dissolute princes and people. They tried to destroy the Church’s doctrine, constitution and discipline. they were similar to those sinners who were warned long ago: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.”[19] They called this rebellious riot and perversion of faith and morals a reformation, and themselves reformers. In reality, they were corrupters. In undermining the strength of Europe through wars and dissensions, they paved the way for those modern rebellions and apostasy. This modern warfare has united and renewed in one attack the three kinds of attack which have up until now been separated; namely, the bloody conflicts of the first ages, the internal pests of heresies, and finally, in the name of evangelical liberty, the vicious corruption and perversion of discipline such as was unknown, perhaps, even in medieval times. Yet in each of these combats the Church has always emerged victorious.

17. The reformers that Borromeo opposed did not even think of this. They tried to reform faith and discipline according to their own whims. Venerable Brethren, it is no better understood by those whom We must withstand today. These moderns, forever prattling about culture and civilization, are undermining the Church’s doctrine, laws, and practices. They are not concerned very much about culture and civilization. By using such high-sounding words they think they can conceal the wickedness of their schemes.

18. All of you know their purpose, subterfuges, and methods. On Our part We have denounced and condemned their scheming. They are proposing a universal apostasy even worse than the one that threatened the age of Charles. It is worse, We say, because it stealthily creeps into the very veins of the Church, hides there, and cunningly pushes erroneous principles to their ultimate conclusions.

19. Both these heresies are fathered by the “enemy” who “sowed weeds among the wheat”[29] in order to bring about the downfall of mankind. Both revolts go about in the hidden ways of darkness, develop along the same line, and come to an end in the same fatal way. In the past the first apostasy turned where fortune seemed to smile. It set rulers against people or people against rulers only to lead both classes to destruction. Today this modern apostasy stirs up hatred between the poor and the rich until, dissatisfied with their station, they gradually fall into such wretched ways that they must pay the fine imposed on those who, absorbed in worldly, temporal things, forget “the kingdom of God and His justice.” As a matter of fact, this present conflict is even more serious than the others. Although the wild innovators of former times generally preserved some fragments of the treasury of revealed doctrine, these moderns act as if they will not rest until they completely destroy it. When the foundations of religion are overthrown, the restraints of civil society are also necessarily shattered. Behold the sad spectacle of our times! Behold the impending danger of the future! However, it is no danger to the Church, for the divine promise leaves no room for doubt. Rather, this revolution threatens the family and nations, especially those who actively stir up or indifferently tolerate this unhealthy atmosphere of irreligion.

20. This impious and foolish war is waged and sometimes supported by those who should be the first to come to Our aid. The errors appear in many forms and the enticements of vice wear different dresses. Both cause many even among our own ranks to be ensnared, seducing them by the appearance of novelty and doctrine, or the illusion that the Church will accept the maxims of the age. Venerable Brethren, you are well aware that we must vigorously resist and repel the enemy’s attacks with the very weapons Borromeo used in his day.

21. Since they attack the very root of faith either by openly denying, hypocritically undermining, or misrepresenting revealed doctrine, we should above all recall the truth Charles often taught. “The primary and most important duty of pastors is to guard everything pertaining to the integral and inviolate maintenance of the Catholic Faith, the faith which the Holy Roman Church professes and teaches, without which it is impossible to please God.”[30] Again: “In this matter no diligence can be too great to fulfill the certain demands of our office.”[31] We must therefore use sound doctrine to withstand “the leaven of heretical depravity,” which if not repressed, will corrupt the whole. That is to say, we must oppose these erroneous opinions now deceitfully being scattered abroad, which, when taken all together, are called Modernism. With Charles we must be mindful “of the supreme zeal and excelling diligence which the bishop must exercise in combating the crime of heresy.”[32] · 

29. Matt. 13:25. · 30. Conc. Prov. I, sub initium.·  31. Conc. Prov. V, Pars I. ·  32. Ibid.

Notre Charge Apostolique

Our Apostolic Mandate – Pope Pius X – Aug. 15, 1910

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.” And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

Rerum Omnium Perturbationem

St. Francis De Salles – Pope Pius XI – Jan. 26, 1923

Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.

An old 2012 First Things article by Thomas Pink is making a second round among some recognize and resist folks, like my younger anything but sedevacantism brother. [1] Apparently, they’re waking up to their error of resisting (rejecting) magisterial documents. Therefore, they’re taking another look to see if the documents of Vatican 2 can really be interpreted with the “hermeneutic of continuity.” After all, if an ecumenical council ratified by a pope can be heretical, what’s the foundation to believe anything outside of dogmatic definitions? Perhaps, some recognize and resist folks realize they can’t really be recognizing and resisting as they are.

Their first obstacle to overcome is the religious liberty issue from Vatican 2’s Dignitatis Humanae. They turn to Professor of Philosophy at King’s College London, Thomas Pink who spins the Vatican 2 document to make it mean exactly opposite to what it says.

He begins by giving examples from Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII and said they, “taught that the state should not only recognize Catholic Christianity as the true religion, but should use its coercive power to restrict the public practice of, and proselytization by, false religions—including Protestantism. Yet in its declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council declared that the state should not use coercion to restrict religion—not even on behalf of the true faith. Such coercion would be a violation of people’s right to religious liberty.”

Professor Pink explains: The declaration is not a statement about religious liberty in general but about a specifically civil liberty: religious liberty in relation to the state and other civil institutions. It does not oppose religious coercion in general, but coercion by the state. The state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence.”

Pink encapsulates his point: We can now see how Dignitatis Humanae does not change doctrine after all. Religious coercion by the state is now morally wrong, and a violation of people’s rights, not because religious coercion by any authority is wrong, but because the Church no longer authorizes it. The Church is now refusing to license the state to act as her coercive agent, and it is from that policy change, and not from any change in underlying doctrine, that the wrongfulness of religious coercion by the state follows.”

First of all, Popes Gregory and Leo condemned freedom to error in religion publicly declaring that it is not a right given by nature of man. [2] This is the key issue, a person’s God-given right by his nature as a human person. Not even the Church can violate a God-given right by nature of man. Professor Pink is saying something entirely different than Vatican 2. Pink makes Vatican 2 out to be merely changing policy on civil matters when, in fact, Vatican 2 is changing the doctrine based on the rights of man.

Vatican 2 defines what is meant by coercion:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

It’s true that neither the Church nor the state can force someone to be Catholic, but that’s different from granting freedom to be publicly anti-Catholic. That’s precisely what Vatican 2 continues to teach by granting false religions to publicly profess and spread heresy and error as a God-given civil right. [3] According to Vatican 2, the foundation for this right is the dignity of the human person:

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. [4]

Gaudium et spes of Vatican 2 reinforces the above teaching in Dignitatis Humanae. [5] Ratizinger wrote in his Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected…”

Professor Pink is proven entirely wrong. It is a doctrinal change and it’s about the intrinsic rights of man, which necessarily condemns the Catholic doctrine taught by Popes Gregory and Leo.

Regardless, the state does not need the Church to grant authorization to prohibit public error against God. The Church does not govern non-Catholics, the state does. Pope Leo XIII declared that it was quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.[6] That means the state must NOT demand, defend, or grant such freedoms, regardless whether it’s a Catholic state or not, because it contrary to divine law. Pink’s explanation that the state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence IS CONDEMNED by the very pope he cites. 

Vatican 2 is clear that religious liberty is a human right that not even the Church can prohibit. It declared that this “right” be made into constitutional law. The results were dissolving the Catholic Nations and Catholic Constitutions around the world. The Catholic State is being declared by the Second Vatican Council as a violation of the rights of man. Countries, such as Spain and Colombia, were forced to give up their Catholic constitutions and follow this document.

Vatican 2 implies religious liberty for non-Catholics is a right by nature of man because of the dignity of the human person. The teachings of Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII say it’s not a right given by nature of man, just the opposite.

The dignity of the human person concept is the basis for Vatican 2 popes to condemn capital punishment, too.

Francis declared: Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. [7]

The Vatican 2 religion is attempting to raise the dignity of the human person to the level of God Himself. According to the council, man has an intrinsic right to publicly blaspheme God’s Name, His Nature, His Church, His Mother (which all heresy does) and he can never be put to death for any cause.  

 IT TRULY TOUCHES UPON THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICHRIST.

 

Footnotes

[1] https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

[2] Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor.  We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.”

      Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature of man.”

[3] Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

[4] Dignitatis humanae (vatican.va)

[5] 28. Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.

This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.(10) God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.(11) Cf. Matt. 22:37-40; Gal. 5:14.

60. It is now possible to free most of humanity from the misery of ignorance. Therefore the duty most consonant with our times, especially for Christians, is that of working diligently for fundamental decisions to be taken in economic and political affairs, both on the national and international level which will everywhere recognize and satisfy the right of all to a human and social culture in conformity with the dignity of the human person without any discrimination of race, sex, nation, religion or social condition. Therefore it is necessary to provide all with a sufficient quantity of cultural benefits, especially of those which constitute the so-called fundamental culture lest very many be prevented from cooperating in the promotion of the common good in a truly human manner because of illiteracy and a lack of responsible activity.

THE LIFE OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

73. In our day, profound changes are apparent also in the structure and institutions of peoples. These result from their cultural, economic and social evolution. Such changes have a great influence on the life of the political community, especially regarding the rights and duties of all in the exercise of civil freedom and in the attainment of the common good, and in organizing the relations of citizens among themselves and with respect to public authority.

The present keener sense of human dignity has given rise in many parts of the world to attempts to bring about a politico-juridical order which will give better protection to the rights of the person in public life. These include the right freely to meet and form associations, the right to express one’s own opinion and to profess one’s religion both publicly and privately. The protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active part in the life and government of the state.

However, those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to be reproved which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves.

Gaudium et spes (vatican.va)

[6] Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888.

[7] New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty – Rescriptum “ex Audentia SS.mi” (vatican.va)

Last Saturday morning, I spoke to Jeff, a hard-core conservative in the Novus Ordo world, who told me that he was a big fan of John Paul 2 and Steubenville University. I was told he was a walking Catholic encyclopedia that could give an answer to sedevacantism. Not only had he never heard of sedevacantism, his one quote from our entire exchange was from the 3rd grade Baltimore Catechism on salvation.

After showing him all the heretical teachings from his Vatican 2 popes, he told us that religious assent must only be given to dogmas ignoring the fact that popes can’t teach heresy regardless.

When we quoted Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura on the pope’s plenary power and giving assent to more than just dogmas, [1] he doubled-down and told us he didn’t have to give religious assent to Pope Pius IX’s teaching. How ironic that he would deny the very document that points to a dogma he’s rejecting, condemns what he’s saying as he’s implying the Baltimore Catechism holds more theological weight than Quanta cura and Vatican I’s definition of the pope’s plenary power.

Then I told him about John Paul 2’s (his favorite pope) teaching on religious assent from his 1993 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. 

Footnote 422 is reference to Lumen Gentium 25 of Vatican 2.

He was done and ready to go after that.

Yesterday, my younger brother made the same argument. He’s an anything but sedevacantist guy who told me that the pope can deviate from the faith with heresy when teaching with non-dogmatic teaching. I told him, what I told Jeff. I quoted 892 from their catechism and said, “You don’t even follow your own religion. So you become the pope’s pope to determine when your pope deviates from the faith that you may NOT give religious assent?”

My brother doubled-down and quoted Cum ex Apostolatus from Pope Paul IV:

“The Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”

He continued to tell me the quote means the pope doesn’t automatically lose office if he deviates from the faith.

Apparently, my brother thinks Pope Paul IV is teaching that we are to be the pope’s pope when the pope uses his mere ordinary magisterium.  

Pope Paul IV is not saying or implying that a pope can deviate from the faith in official documents whereby each person in the Church can decide when to contradict his official teaching. The context is that a pope who deviates from the faith (not in official documents) ceases to be pope, which is why he can be contradicted. [2] Bellarmine says the same thing. [3] Pope Paul IV also tells us in the document that heretics can’t become popes to begin with, which is the application of sedevacantism today.

Jeff, my brother, and all those like them go much further against Pope Pius IX’s condemnations, because they actually withhold assent to judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See that do touch upon dogmas of faith and morals. They reject the teachings from what they claim comes from an ecumenical council ratified by a pope.

They ultimately believe each Catholic is to be the pope’s pope when their pope isn’t defining a dogma. That’s their fatal flaw. They forget that Christ gave us a pope to keep the Church from deviating from Christianity, not the other way around. They should take note of what St. Robert Bellarmine rightly taught:

The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. (De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation.)

Looking at the Vatican 2 church with its heresies on religious liberty to the death penalty, its evil practices of altar girls to giving Communion to non-Catholics and those living in mortal sin, from the acceptance of homosexuality to the hideous architecture of churches, from their liberal clerics promoting abominations to their most conservative believers having to reject magisterial teaching is proof enough that the Vatican 2 religion is not Catholic. Therefore, their popes can’t be true popes. They must reject Catholicism to save their Vatican 2 religion. In rejecting their papal teachings and criticizing how awful and divided their church is, they bear witness to the truth of sedevacantism despite themselves.

 

 

Footnotes

[1] “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)

[2] Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (strobertbellarmine.net)

 [3] Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reasonhe can be judged and punished by the Church.

Growing up in Kentucky, we spent most of our time outdoors. When we got hungry, we just grabbed an apple off our apple tree that we grew in our field. We also had several tart cherry trees, peach trees, and pear trees, but perhaps the neatest thing we had were beehives. My father is a beekeeper and every year we get to eat delicious clover honey. What an awesome treat! Little did I know just how important the honeybee truly is for our lives and our holy Catholic Faith.

The honeybee may be the most important animal on earth. Pollination is vitally important for life on earth and the bees are the number one pollinators. Honey is a superfood. Bacteria can’t live in it. It’s used for ailments such as the common cold. It will help clean your teeth by killing the bacteria buildup. Bee venom is also used for healing. The honeybee is truly a gift from God.

In the early Church, the honeybee was considered a sacred creature and is a uniquely Catholic symbol.

The bee is found six times in the Bible: Deut. 1:44, Judges 14:8, Psalm 117:12, Sirach 11:3, Isaiah 7:18, and it’s also found in an addition to the Septuagint version of Proverbs of chapter 6, “Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways, and learn wisdom …. Or go to the bee, and learn how industrious she is, and how her industry deserves our respect, for kings and the sick make use of the product of her labor for their health. Indeed, she is glorious and desired by all, and though she be frail, she is honored, because she treasures wisdom.” Deborah is also the Hebrew word for bee.

Honey is mentioned 61 times in the Old Testament and 5 times in the New Testament and honeycomb is mentioned 11 times in the Bible. Samson and John the Baptist ate honey.

Christians have looked to the honeybee as a model for the Christian life. They symbolize hard work, chastity, and sacrifice. St. John Chrysostom wrote in his 12th Homily, “The bee is more honored than other animals, not because it labors, but because it labors for others.” 

The traditional tabernacle and the triple tiara are shaped like a beehive and the altar candles are made from 100% beeswax, which is a symbol of purity. Honey represents sweetness, which the Word of God in Scripture, Tradition, and the Eucharist certainly is.

Honeybees also stay with the Queen. They guard, protect, and follow her. Wherever she goes, they go. When bees sting an intruder in their hive, they will ultimately die. In other words, they will give up their own lives to save the others, especially the queen. Let us stay with Our Lady and guard and protect her honor and follow her as she followed Our Lord.

The patron saint of beekeepers and candle-makers is St. Ambrose. Legend has it that when he was an infant in his cradle, bees swarmed his mouth leaving no sting but only honey. It came to pass that he would be called the “Honey Tongued Doctor.” The beekeeper term Ambrosia (from the name of the saint) is a mixture of pollen and nectar used to feed bee larvae by worker bees.

Cardinal Maffeo Barberini changed his coat of arms from 3 horseflies to 3 honeybees to gain status. He would later became Pope Urban VIII in 1623 and he spread the imagery of honeybees throughout Rome. You can see his bees in the huge columns of the Altar of the Confession in St. Peter’s Basilica.   

Monument to Pope Urban VIII-St Peter’s Basilica – Walks in Rome (Est. 2001)

Pope Pius XI tells us that the Christian teacher imitates the bee “which takes the choicest part of the flower and leaves the rest” (Divini illius Magistri, n. 87).

Lastly, Pope Pius XII gave an address on honeybees on Nov. 27, 1948. He declared, “Bees are models of social life and activity, in which each class has its duty to perform and performs it exactly…Ah, if men could and would listen to the lesson of the bees…how much better the world would be! Working like bees with order and peace, men would learn to enjoy and have others enjoy the fruit of their labors…” [See footnote for full papal address. ]

The next time you see a honeybee, be reminded of the words of our popes and let it be. It has a lot of important work to do and so do we.

 

 

Footnote

On Bees | EWTN

“When one loves the pope, one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit to this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext- easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey-that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, FOR THERE CAN BE NO HOLINESS WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE POPE.” Address to the priest of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912 In Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912] p. 695 

Now apply this teaching of Pope St. Pius X to the following… 

Pope names homosexual to Vatican commission (traditioninaction.org)

Francis holds hands with pro-homo priest (traditioninaction.org)

Pro ‘Gay’ Finnish Lutheran bishop received by Francis (traditioninaction.org)

Homosexual couple welcomed at the Vatican (traditioninaction.org)

Homosexual invited to be lector at papal Mass (traditioninaction.org)

Pope Bergoglio Kisses the Hand of a Pro-homosexcual Priest (traditioninaction.org)

Pope Benedict praises homosexual Archbishop Juliusz Paetz; L’Osservatore Romano praises Oscar Wilde (traditioninaction.org)

Benedict XVI blessed by a rabbi in Sao Paulo, Brazil @ TraditionInAction.org

Benedict XVI visiting a mosque in Constantinople @ TraditionInAction.org

Benedict XVI promotes women on the Altar; pictures of a Mass at the St. Peter’s Basilica @ TraditionInAction.org