Everything in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is unstable as falsehood is of its nature based of the illusion of stability. Falsehood of its nature is inherently unstable. There is nothing secure, nothing stable in the “doctrines” and the “pastoral practices” of Modernism, something that Pope Saint Pius X pointed out in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: ‘These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.’ On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ”Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason’; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ”The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.’ Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: ‘Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.’ (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The Modernists in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have done us the inestimable favor of explaining to us that they do not believe in the immutability of Catholic doctrine, including the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church. Numerous articles on this site have included Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s lifelong belief that it is impossible for human language to express the various “meanings” contained found in doctrine as any particular dogmatic formulation necessarily is contingent upon the subjective circumstances of the historical moment in which it was made. The entirety of conciliarism is based upon this denial of the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than utter blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, under Whose infallible protection and guidance our true popes and the fathers of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils make doctrinal statements and other declarations pertaining to the Holy Faith.

The now retired prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Destruction, Deformation and Deconstruction of the Faith, William “Cardinal” Levada, who is, apart from being a close friend of the doctrinally, liturgically and morally corrupt Roger Michael “Cardinal” Mahony, a former student and protege of Father Joseph Ratzinger, expressed this precise blasphemous heresy almost exactly seven years ago now in an interview that he gave to the Whispers in the Loggia website:

The role of the Church in that dialogue between an individual and his or her God, says the Cardinal, is not to be the first interlocutor, but the role is indispensable. “We believe that the apostles and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another.

But at the end of the day there has to be an instance that can decide whether a specific lifestyle is coherent with the principles and values of our faith, that can judge whether our actions are in accordance with the commandment to love your neighbor. The mission of the Church is not to prohibit people from thinking, investigate different hypotheses, or collect knowledge. Its mission is to give those processes orientation”.  (Levada Gives Rare Interview: “I Am Not Responsible for the Crusades, Past or Present.)

In other words, William Levada believes in the concept of dogmatic evolutionism that was condemned by: Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, and by Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council over which he presided (April 24, 1870); Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and in The Oath Against Modernism, September 8, 1907; and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. Levada believes what was taught to him by Ratzinger directly.

Jorge Mario Berogoglio believes the same thing, although he is not bothered in the least by any apparent contradictions between the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church as does not believe that there is any such thing as immutable truths. Everything is negotiable in light of the “pastoral needs” of “the people,” something that I attempted to point out only two days ago now, Sunday, March 2, 2014, Quinquagesima Sunday, in To Tickle Itching Ears One Must Abandon The Holy Cross.

Bergoglio’s own “theologian,” “Archbishop” Victor Manuel Fernandez, the rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, has stated this clearly, although Bergoglio has not been obtuse in the past in his contempt for doctrinal exactitude, which he has expressed repeatedly, including in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

“The problem is that fanatics end up turning certain principles into a never-ending battle and deliberately only ever focus on these issues,” Mgr. Víctor Manuel Fernández, Rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina said, referring to “non negotiable” values as they are called. Fernández, who was nominated archbishop by Pope Francis, was interviewed by Vatican correspondent Paolo Rodari (who writes for Italian daily La Repubblica) and their discussion became a book entitled “Il progetto di Francesco. Dove vuole portare la Chiesa” (“The Francis project. Where he wants to take the Church”, EMI publications, pp.142, €10,90)

Some questions dealt with Francis’ approach to ethical issues, an area that is currently being hotly debated. This is evident from how people have embraced certain appeals the Pope has made, especially ecclesial movements, people who cannot express their Christian identity fully without making enemies and having to put up a fight. “The moral issues in question need to be contextualised in order to be understood fully. This means having a context that is closer to home as well as a broader one,” Fernández said.

 

This broader context which Francis talks about in the Evangelii Gaudium “is the kerygma, it is an invitation to an encounter with God who loves and saves people and for this reason presents us with the possibility of a better life. This is what it means to “make hearts burn” and this is the most important thing. Presumably, when the Church goes on about philosophical or natural law-related questions, it does so in order to create a dialogue with non believers on moral issues. And yet by using dated philosophical arguments, the Church is not at all convincing and it misses the chance to proclaim the beauty of Jesus Christ’s ability to set people’s hearts on fire. Said philosophical arguments do nothing to change people’s lives. But if we manage to set others’ hearts on fire  or at least show them what’s so attractive about the Gospel, then people will be more willing to discuss and reflect on answers regarding morality.”

According to the Argentinean theologian “there also needs to be reference to a context close to home, that is always positive in light of what is being considered or proposed. For example, it is no good opposing same-sex marriage because people tend to see us as a group of resentful, cruel, insensitive, over-the-top even, individuals. It is an entirely different thing to talk about the beauty of marriage and the harmony of differences that form part of an alliance between a man and woman. This positive context speaks for itself when it comes to showing that the use of the same term “marriage” to describe same-sex unions, in unsuitable.”

Fernández believes some have taken non negotiable principles too far, “distorting Benedict XVI’s teaching.” “Some have even claimed that all Church teachings depend and are based on non negotiable principles. This certainly is heresy! To claim that Jesus Christ, his resurrection, fraternal love and all that the Gospel teaches us depends on ethical principles is a distortion of Christianity.”

 

“For example,” Fernández goes on to say, “the Pope stands firm in his opposition to abortion because if he does not defend the innocence of human life, we aren’t left with many other arguments with which to defend human rights. Of course this is not negotiable, but it doesn’t mean that certain moral principles are the source of all other truths of the Christian faith. The crux of our faith, which sheds light on everything, is not this, but the kerygma. This is the only way to understand the key role played by the “truth hierarchy” which this Pope wants to restore. The problem is that fanatics end up turning certain principles into a never-ending battle and deliberately only ever focus on these issues.”

 

Francis, the Argentinean theologian said in his interview with Rodari, “is asking us to embrace a certain style, to give things the right balance and focus. The Pope asks us not to “always” focus “exclusively” on certain moral principles for two reasons: so that we don’t put people off by being too over-insistent and above all so that we don’t destroy the harmony of our message. Radical circles within the Church ridicule the Pope when they say: “now the Pope forbids us to talk about these issues.” This is a lie and defaming the Pope is immoral. They are all moral when they discuss issues that interest them but not when it comes to other issues.”

 

“Up until two years ago some people would never have accepted the Pope’s words being questioned but now all sorts of critical comments are being spread and written about Pope Francis. This is no reflection of faith, it is an ideological battle: I’ll defend the Pope if he defends my own opinions.” The theologian concludes by saying that “if we look at each case individually, there are other aspects that are not negotiable: loving one’s neighbour, seeking justice for the oppressed, being honest in business dealings…” (Rationalizing Dogmatic and Moral Relativism.)

This can be dispensed with relatively quickly:

First, Victor Manuel Fernandez does not understand that dogmatic truth is based upon Divine Revelation, which is immutable because God is immutable. Period. No true Catholic bases his belief in the immutability of doctrine on “ethical principles. We do so because we accept the very Word of God as He has revealed Himself to us through His Catholic Church as He canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

Second, Victor Manuel Fernandez’s denigration of the Natural Law as having any kind of relationship to moral truth demonstrates that he does not understand or accept the fact that God is the Author of the Natural Law, which is as immutable as that of doctrine itself. The precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law are immutable. The Catholic Church is the sole teacher and repository of the Divine Positive Law and she is the authoritative interpreter of all that is contained in the Natural Law, something that Pope Pius XI made clear in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. She has never maintained that outside her fold and apart from her teaching, man cannot arrive at any moral truth; she has on the contrary more than once condemned this opinion because it has appeared under more forms than one. She does however say, has said, and will ever say, that because of her institution by Jesus Christ, because of the Holy Ghost sent her in His name by the Father, she alone possesses what she has had immediately from God and can never lose, the whole of moral truth, omnem veritatem, in which all individual moral truths are included, as well those which man may learn by the help of reason, as those which form part of revelation or which may be deduced from it.  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Third,  Victor Manuel Fernandez confirms what I have been saying for years about the opposition of the conciliar “popes” to abortion and to the perverse notion of “marriage” between persons of the same gender, namely that such opposition is based on a regard for “human rights,” not for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II spoke in terms of “human solidarity” and “human rights.” So did Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. So does Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. One never heard Ratzinger/Benedict and one never hears Bergoglio/Francis mention the binding precepts, say, of the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Commandments. They have respect for “human rights,” not for the immutable law of God. What matters is the “kerygma,” not the law of God. This is nothing other than what I termed it yesterday, Situation Ethics or Moral Relativism.

Fourth, Victor Manuel Hernandez has a very short selective memory concerning “opposition” to “papal” teaching, which did not begin with the “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio on March 13, 2013. All manner of priests, religious and theologians publicly opposed Giovanni Montini/Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, even though it was a completely revolutionary document that inverted the ends of marriage and paved the way for “Catholic contraception” by means of “natural family planning” (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.) Similarly, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI were denounced regularly as “conservatives” by ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries. The only thing that has happened now is that the former “dissenters” are now in charge, and they are the ones invoking “loyalty to the ‘pope'” now to demand adherence to the new program. Then again, a true pope is deserving of our obedience. As the conciliar “popes” have promoted that which is against the Faith, of course, we know that they cannot be true popes and that we must have no association with them whatsoever. Victor Manuel Hernandez is living in a fantasy world that has no connection with reality, whether supernatural or natural, in the slightest.

Fifth, it is the likes of Karol Wojtyla/John “Paul” II (and his “living tradition), Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (and his “hermeneutic of continuity”), Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Victor Manuel Fernandez (and their “kerygma”) who are guilty of heresy, not believing Catholics who understand that the truths of the Divine Positive Law and Natural Law are immutable because God is immutable. The Oath Against Modernism makes this abundantly clear:

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .  (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

The charge of heresy is thus laid at the doorsteps and upon the persons of Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio/Francis and their supporting cast of conciliar revolutionaries, including the likes of Victor Manuel Fernandez. The inherent instability that is the very nature of heresy and all falsehood, whether pertaining to supernatural or natural truth, is such that its proponents become laws unto themselves, having no regard even for their predecessors in the pathways of heresy and falsehood.

As I have been writing for many years now, the conciliar revolutionaries have established the principle that the teaching of the “past” can be understood in “different ways” according to the circumstances of the moment or that it can be ignored entirely. This “teaching,” however, makes the “magisterium” of one conciliar “pope” irrevelant to his successors, who believe that the “teaching” and or disciplinary decisions of one conciliar “pope” can be ignored with impunity by another according to the “necessities” of the moment or to be “faithful” to the “kerygma” of the heart according to what is said to be the “wholeness” of the teaching of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

This is what his happening at present with the recently installed conciliar “bishop” of the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, Mr. Michael Olson, who has, just several weeks into his “episcopal” reign of terror, ordered the President of the College of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More to cease staging the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by presbyters within the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. Once again you see, Ratzinger/Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, is no more binding to Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and his conciliar “bishops” than, say, The Oath Against Modernism, which was “revoked” by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI in 1967 was to Ratzinger/Benedict. Bergoglio has now authorized open warfare against Summorum Pontificum, which was designed to “pacify the spirits” of traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures, just as Ratzinger/Benedict has waged a lifelong warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth.  By doing this, of course, Bergoglio is being perfectly consistent with his past, which included suppressing a traditional community of religious women during his time as the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina (see Francis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrants.)

Here is the initial report, found on the Rorate Caeli website, of this latest salvo in Bergoglio’s war against Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals, a war that has been waged rhetorically and programmatically:

In a stunning and breathtaking letter, the Most Rev. Michael Olson, the newly-ordained bishop of the Fort Worth Diocese and the second-youngest bishop in the United States, has fully and totally banned the offering of the Traditional Latin Mass in the chapel of Fisher More College, where it has been offered for the last three years on a daily basis by chaplains all approved by his predecessor bishop according to the college. This blow comes after the students of the college raised $300,000 in about a week to keep the school open for the spring semester (see here). 

Rorate has exclusively obtained — through a source who has requested anonymity — a copy of the letter sent last week by the bishop after a personal meeting with the college’s president, Michael King. Even more striking, the letter from Bishop Olson states that he’s doing this “for your own soul,” addressing Mr. King, apparently saying in some twisted way the offering of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is a danger to Mr.King’s soul. 

When asked by Rorate for a response to the letter from Bishop Olson, the school declined to comment.  (BREAKING & EXCLUSIVE: Bishop Bans Fisher More College from offering Traditional Latin Mass to studentsStunning letter gives no reason, simply bans the Mass said daily for last three years at school for sake of “your own soul.”)

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the “Tridentime Mass” impossible–because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology–for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)