Although the number of people who will wind up reading the latest revolutionary document from the International Theological Commission, Sensus Fidei: In the Life of the Church, will probably wind up being lower than those who read the articles on this site, it is perhaps useful to devote a little time to this latest effort on the part of the conciliar revolutionaries to provide theological justification for their Modernist presuppositions and prescriptions.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI spent a good deal of time during false “pontificate” seeking to “stabilize” the conciliar revolution by his infamous, philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity,” which was nothing more and nothing less than Modernism’s “evolution of dogma” that had been presented to us by Wojtyla/John Paul II as “living tradition” (Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part two). Ratzinger/Benedict gave his “papal” imprimatur to supposedly “unofficial” documents issued by the International Theological Commission and the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Conciliar Church and the Orthodox Church while using his general audience addresses to deconstruct and misrepresent the teachings and the lives of very Saints and Doctors to make them perjured witnesses in behalf of conciliarism. And this is to say nothing of his “unofficial” books issued during the time he served as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
It is only natural for the conciliar revolutionaries to seek to provide some kind of theological justification for their revolution by misrepresenting, deconstructing and corrupting the true meaning of the sensus fidei, that supernatural sense of the Holy Faith by which members of the Church Militant are able to distinguish that which is in accord with the Holy Faith from that which is not.
The theological justification found in Sensus fidei in the life of the Church represents nothing other than a transparent effort, no matter how “unofficial” (although it was signed by the conciliar prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the arch-heretic named Gerhard Ludwig Muller), to prepare the way for the Instrumentum Laboris that is to be released today, Thursday, June 26, 2014, the Octave of the Solemnity of Corpus Christi and the Commemoration of Saints John and Paul, and its revolutionary program for the upcoming “Extraordinary Synod on the Family. As noted in Jorge Cooks the Books two months ago now, the upcoming hootenanny in Rome will sanction the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion to civilly divorced and remarried Catholics who lack even the fig leaf of a conciliar decree of nullity and to provide a foundation for providing the liturgical invalid sacramental rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to “couples” who are engaged in unrepentant acts of perversity.
Sensus fidei in the life of the Church aims to make the case, albeit indirectly in its final passages, that the “non-reception” of Catholic doctrine on the part of the lay faithful might represent a need to reconsider how the doctrine is formulated. Translation: do you hear the people sing, singing the song of wanting to be reaffirmed in their sins.
The conciliar revolutionaries have long sought to destroy the sensus Catholicus, the sense of the Catholic Faith, and they have been so successful in this regard that most Catholics alive today regard as alien to the Holy Faith teaching and pastoral practices that have been passed down to us from time immemorial. Those who cleave to the unchanging truths of the Holy Faith are said to be “disobedient” and “schismatic” and “disloyal” and “out of the church” altogether.
The principal means by which the conciliar revolutionaries sought to create a new sensus fidei was the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. The revolution against Catholic Worship that resulted in the overthrow of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church as a synthetic concoction, designed to appeal to Protestants and unbelievers, replaced it as a means to propagandize a new and false religion, conciliarism, with such lightning speed so as to break down the supernatural resistance of ordinary Catholics to un-Catholic and anti-Catholic “innovations” by calling upon them to be “obedient” and by helping to disseminate propaganda designed to “erase” true memories of the glories of the Catholic past in order to create artificial” memories that would justify their efforts to “restore” liturgical rites that either next existed or that were used by heretical sects. Most Catholics were so convinced by the revolutionaries that the “past” had been bad that they came to accept the innovations in what was said to be the Catholic liturgy in the name of a “renewal” that was nothing other than a revival of the spirit of antiquarianism (claiming to “restore” ancient rites that never existed or that were used by heretics) that was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei on August 28, 1794, and condemned as well by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:
The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days — which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation — to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayer books approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
“For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation.” Anyone who cannot see that this one sentence describes the effects of the innovations of the abomination that is the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service is not being intellectually honest. The Novus Ordo service is of its very nature as much a revolution against Catholic Faith and Worship as that represented by the liturgies of Protestant sects.
The true sense of the Catholic Faith that should be possessed by baptized Catholics has been replaced by a diabolically-inspired sense that have paralyzed and weakened the processes by which they can sanctify and thus save their immortal souls. Although Sensus fidei in the life of the Church seeks to make a distinction between as part of a “healthy democracy” in the world and the sensus fidei, the document actually endorses a sense of public opinion in the false church conciiarism founded on the false theology of the “people as the Church of God” that is an essential component of the new ecclesiology propagated by Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.
The “people” have come to accept all manner of heretical teachings and aberrant, deviant practices as just part of a natural “evolution.” Most Catholics in the conciliar structures today do not get shocked when a false “pontiff” hides his pectoral cross in the presence of Talmudic rabbis in Jerusalem or speak of the Old Covenant as having never been revoked or personally esteem the symbols of false religions with their hands Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did the latter with his own priestly hands on Thursday, April 17, 2009, at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, District of Columbia, without a word of protest from those who maintained a studied silence about his outrages against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity because they had too much to “lose” by pointing out the sins against the First and Second Commandments committed by their supposed “pope of Tradition.”
The “people” are not shocked by any kind of ecumenical “dialogue” or “inter-religious prayer” service as this is what all of this born after 1965 or so have known and it is what many others born before that time have come to accept as part of being “open” to the “goodness” of other “faith traditions.”
The “people” have simply come to accept what those who have the true sensus Catholicus now are apostasies, blasphemies, sacrileges and heresies as integral parts of what they think is the Catholic Faith. They look to Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the man who will do away with any remaining vestiges of the past, and the new document from the International Theological Commission means to empower them all the more, giving the false “pontiff” the false theology that he needs to justify change and novelty in the name of the responding to the “sense” of the faithful.
Yes, the same folks who produced The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, April 19, 2007, that in essence, swept away Catholic belief in the existence of Limbo as a place of natural happiness for infants made a similar effort to represent its text as being in keeping with the teaching of the Catholic Church by making references to historical examples of how the sensus fidei has guided Holy Mother Church in the past. The examples given do not prove what the conciliar revolutionaries desire.
To cite one such example, Sensus fidei in the life of the Church attempts to use Pope Pius IX’s request to the bishops of the world to ascertain whether he should proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary as similar to its own revolutionary redefinition and application of the sensus fidei:
38. The influence of Perrone’s research on Pope Pius IX’s decision to proceed with the definition of the Immaculate Conception is evident from the fact that before he defined it the Pope asked the bishops of the world to report to him in writing regarding the devotion of their clergy and faithful people to the conception of the Immaculate Virgin. In the apostolic constitution containing the definition, Ineffabilis Deus (1854), Pope Pius IX said that although he already knew the mind of the bishops on this matter, he had particularly asked the bishops to inform him of the piety and devotion of their faithful in this regard, and he concluded that ‘Holy Scripture, venerable Tradition, the constant mind of the Church [perpetuus Ecclesiae sensus], the remarkable agreement of Catholic bishops and the faithful [singularis catholicorum Antistitum ac fidelium conspiratio], and the memorable Acts and Constitutions of our predecessors’ all wonderfully illustrated and proclaimed the doctrine. He thus used the language of Perrone’s treatise to describe the combined testimony of the bishops and the faithful. Newman highlighted the word, conspiratio, and commented: ‘the two, the Church teaching and the Church taught, are put together, as one twofold testimony, illustrating each other, and never to be divided’. (Sensus fidei in the life of the Church.)
There is quite an essential difference between what Pope Pius IX did before proclaiming the doctrine of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception and what has been done by the revolutionaries who have jettisoned the Catholic past in order to “return” to what the claim are the “sources” of the Faith without any “corrupting filter” provided by the Scholastics of the High Middle Ages.
Devotion to Our Lady as conceived without stain of Original Sin can be traced to the time after the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. as bishops in Syria authorized the Feast of the Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God that was celebrated on December 9, the date on which Our Lady appeared for the first time to the devout Indian named Juan Diego atop Tepayec Hill exactly eleven hundred years later. And Pope Alexander VII, largely as result of the influence of Venerable Mary of Agreda, who was, after all, a member of the Conceptionist sisters, and of King Philip IV of Spain, issued the first decree in 1661 on the doctrine. It should also be noted that the Venerable Mary of Agreda had a primary source for her devotion to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary: Our Lady herself.
Pope Pius IX explained the consistent testimony in favor of the doctrine of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception as follows in Ineffabilus Deus, December 8, 1854:
Supreme Reason for the Privilege: The Divine Maternity
And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son — the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart — and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin — a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God — and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts. From this very doctrine, flourishing and wondrously propagated in the Catholic world through the efforts and zeal of the bishops, was made very clear by the Church when she did not hesitate to present for the public devotion and veneration of the faithful the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. By this most significant fact, the Church made it clear indeed that the conception of Mary is to be venerated as something extraordinary, wonderful, eminently holy, and different from the conception of all other human beings — for the Church celebrates only the feast days of the saints.
And hence the very words with which the Sacred Scriptures speak of Uncreated Wisdom and set forth his eternal origin, the Church, both in its ecclesiastical offices and in its liturgy, has been wont to apply likewise to the origin of the Blessed Virgin, inasmuch as God, by one and the same decree, had established the origin of Mary and the Incarnation of Divine Wisdom.
Ordinary Teaching of the Roman Church
These truths, so generally accepted and put into practice by the faithful, indicate how zealously the Roman Church, mother and teacher of all Churches, has continued to teach this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. Yet the more important actions of the Church deserve to be mentioned in detail. For such dignity and authority belong to the Church that she alone is the center of truth and of Catholic unity. It is the Church in which alone religion has been inviolably preserved and from which all other Churches must receive the tradition of the Faith.
The same Roman Church, therefore, desired nothing more than by the most persuasive means to state, to protect, to promote and to defend the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This fact is most clearly shown to the whole world by numerous and significant acts of the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors. To them, in the person of the Prince of the Apostles, were divinely entrusted by Christ our Lord, the charge and supreme care and the power of feeding the lambs and sheep; in particular, of confirming their brethren, and of ruling and governing the universal Church.
Veneration of the Immaculate
Our predecessors, indeed, by virtue of their apostolic authority, gloried in instituting the Feast of the Conception in the Roman Church. They did so to enhance its importance and dignity by a suitable Office and Mass, whereby the prerogative of the Virgin, her exception from the hereditary taint, was most distinctly affirmed. As to the homage already instituted, they spared no effort to promote and to extend it either by the granting of indulgences, or by allowing cities, provinces and kingdoms to choose as their patroness God’s own Mother, under the title of “The Immaculate Conception.” Again, our predecessors approved confraternities, congregations and religious communities founded in honor of the Immaculate Conception, monasteries, hospitals, altars, or churches; they praised persons who vowed to uphold with all their ability the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. Besides, it afforded the greatest joy to our predecessors to ordain that the Feast of the Conception should be celebrated in every church with the very same honor as the Feast of the Nativity; that it should be celebrated with an octave by the whole Church; that it should be reverently and generally observed as a holy day of obligation; and that a pontifical Capella should be held in our Liberian pontifical basilica on the day dedicated to the conception of the Virgin. Finally, in their desire to impress this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God upon the hearts of the faithful, and to intensify the people’s piety and enthusiasm for the homage and the veneration of the Virgin conceived without the stain of original sin, they delighted to grant, with the greatest pleasure, permission to proclaim the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin in the Litany of Loreto, and in the Preface of the Mass, so that the rule of prayer might thus serve to illustrate the rule of belief. Therefore, we ourselves, following the procedure of our predecessors, have not only approved and accepted what had already been established, but bearing in mind, moreover, the decree of Sixtus IV,  have confirmed by our authority a proper Office in honor of the Immaculate Conception, and have with exceeding joy extended its use to the universal Church.
The Roman Doctrine
Now inasmuch as whatever pertains to sacred worship is intimately connected with its object and cannot have either consistency or durability if this object is vague or uncertain, our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, therefore, while directing all their efforts toward an increase of the devotion to the conception, made it their aim not only to emphasize the object with the utmost zeal, but also to enunciate the exact doctrine. Definitely and clearly they taught that the feast was held in honor of the conception of the Virgin. They denounced as false and absolutely foreign to the mind of the Church the opinion of those who held and affirmed that it was not the conception of the Virgin but her sanctification that was honored by the Church. They never thought that greater leniency should be extended toward those who, attempting to disprove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, devised a distinction between the first and second instance of conception and inferred that the conception which the Church celebrates was not that of the first instance of conception but the second. In fact, they held it was their duty not only to uphold and defend with all their power the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin but also to assert that the true object of this veneration was her conception considered in its first instant. Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: “Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception.”
Moreover, our predecessors considered it their special solemn duty with all diligence, zeal, and effort to preserve intact the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. For, not only have they in no way ever allowed this doctrine to be censured or changed, but they have gone much further and by clear statements repeatedly asserted that the doctrine by which we profess the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin is on its own merits entirely in harmony with the ecclesiastical veneration; that it is ancient and widespread, and of the same nature as that which the Roman Church has undertaken to promote and to protect, and that it is entirely worthy to be used in the Sacred Liturgy and solemn prayers. Not content with this they most strictly prohibited any opinion contrary to this doctrine to be defended in public or private in order that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin might remain inviolate. By repeated blows they wished to put an end to such an opinion. And lest these oft-repeated and clearest statements seem useless, they added a sanction to them.
All these things our illustrious predecessor, Alexander VII, summed up in these words: “We have in mind the fact that the Holy Roman Church solemnly celebrated the Feast of the Conception of the undefiled and ever-Virgin Mary, and has long ago appointed for this a special and proper Office according to the pious, devout, and laudable instruction which was given by our predecessor, Sixtus IV. Likewise, we were desirous, after the example of our predecessors, to favor this praiseworthy piety, devotion, feast and veneration — a veneration which is in keeping with the piety unchanged in the Roman Church from the day it was instituted. We also desired to protect this piety and devotion of venerating and extolling the most Blessed Virgin preserved from original sin by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, we were anxious to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace in the flock of Christ by putting down arguments and controversies and by removing scandals. So at the instance and request of the bishops mentioned above, with the chapters of the churches, and of King Philip and his kingdoms, we renew the Constitutions and Decrees issued by the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, especially Sixtus IV, Paul V, and Gregory XV, in favor of the doctrine asserting that the soul of the Blessed Virgin, in its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin; and also in favor of the feast and veneration of the conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as is manifest, was instituted in keeping with that pious belief. So we command this feast to be observed under the censures and penalties contained in the same Constitutions.
“And therefore, against all and everyone of those who shall continue to construe the said Constitutions and Decrees in a manner apt to frustrate the favor which is thereby given to the said doctrine, and to the feast and relative veneration, or who shall dare to call into question the said sentence, feast and worship, or in any way whatever, directly or indirectly, shall declare themselves opposed to it under any pretext whatsoever, were it but only to the extent of examining the possibilities of effecting the definition, or who shall comment upon and interpret the Sacred Scripture, or the Fathers or Doctors in connection therewith, or finally, for any reason, or on any occasion, shall dare, either in writing or verbally, to speak, preach, treat, dispute or determine upon, or assert whatsoever against the foregoing matters, or who shall adduce any arguments against them, while leaving them unresolved, or who shall disagree therewith in any other conceivable manner, we hereby declare that in addition to the penalties and censures contained in the Constitutions issued by Sixtus IV to which we want them to be subjected and to which we subject them by the present Constitution, we hereby decree that they be deprived of the authority of preaching, reading in public, that is to say teaching and interpreting; and that they be also deprived ipso facto of the power of voting, either actively or passively, in all elections, without the need for any further declaration; and that also, ipso facto, without any further declaration, they shall incur the penalty of perpetual disability from preaching, reading in public, teaching and interpreting, and that it shall not be possible to absolve them from such penalty, or remove it, save through ourselves, or the Roman Pontiffs who shall succeed us.
“We also require that the same shall remain subject to any other penalties which by us, of our own free will — or by the Roman Pontiffs, our successors (according as they may decree) — shall be deemed advisable to establish, and by the present Constitution we declare them subject thereto, and hereby renew the above Decrees and Constitutions of Paul V and Gregory XV.
“Moreover, as regards those books in which the said sentence, feast and relative veneration are called into question or are contradicted in any way whatsoever, according to what has already been stated, either in writing or verbally, in discourses, sermons, lectures, treatises and debates — that may have been printed after the above-praised Decree of Paul V, or may be printed hereafter we hereby prohibit them, subject to the penalties and censures established by the Index of prohibited books, and ipso facto, without any further declaration, we desire and command that they be held as expressly prohibited.”
Testimonies of the Catholic World
All are aware with how much diligence this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God has been handed down, proposed and defended by the most outstanding religious orders, by the more celebrated theological academies, and by very eminent doctors in the sciences of theology. All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.
The Council of Trent
Besides, we must note a fact of the greatest importance indeed. Even the Council of Trent itself, when it promulgated the dogmatic decree concerning original sin, following the testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Holy Fathers and of the renowned Council, decreed and defined that all men are born infected by original sin; nevertheless, it solemnly declared that it had no intention of including the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in this decree and in the general extension of its definition. Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin.
Testimonies of Tradition
And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner — this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grown only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilus Deus, December 8, 1854.)
Veneration of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary under her title of her Immaculate Conception, a doctrine that was ratified by Our Lady herself on March 25, 1858, when she said “I am the Immaculate Conception” to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in the Grotto of Massabielle near Lourdes, France, is of ancient origin. Pope Pius IX invented nothing new. Neither did the faithful of the Nineteenth Century. The proclamation of the doctrine was a merely an infallible statement of the fact itself.
What ancient sources can the conciliar revolutionaries produce to justify the new ecclesiology’s “the church as communion” and false ecumenism and inter-religious “dialogue” and inter-religious “prayer” and episcopal collegiality and religious liberty and separation of Church and State and their embrace of the condemned and philosophically absurd Modernist concept known as the “evolution of doctrine”?
Moreover, can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty assert that the conciliar revolutionaries have their novelties have “grown within their own genus, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning”?
Indeed, the conciliar “doctrines,” such as they are, represent wholesale contradictions of the defined teaching of the Catholic Church, and the fact that most of the lay faithful today have no sense of this is because they have been exposed to false doctrines, false liturgical rites and false pastoral practices that have helped to create, foster and sustain a false sensus Catholicus.
Sensus fidei in the life of the Church goes so far as to state that the sensus fidei has an “ecumenical dimension,” meaning that non-Catholics have a role to play in the development of what is said to be Catholic doctrine. No, I am not making this up.
See for yourselves:
The notions, sensus fidei, sensus fidelium, and consensus fidelium, have all been treated, or at least mentioned, in various international dialogues between the Catholic Church and other churches and ecclesial communities. Broadly speaking, there has been agreement in these dialogues that the whole body of the faithful, lay as well as ordained, bears responsibility for maintaining the Church’s apostolic faith and witness, and that each of the baptised, by reason of a divine anointing (1Jn 2:20, 27), has the capacity to discern the truth in matters of faith. There is also general agreement that certain members of the Church exercise a special responsibility of teaching and oversight, but always in collaboration with the rest of the faithful.
86. Two particular questions related to the sensus fidelium arise in the context of the ecumenical dialogue to which the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed:
i) Should only those doctrines which gain the common consent of all Christians be regarded as expressing the sensus fidelium and therefore as true and binding? This proposal goes counter to the Catholic Church’s faith and practice. By means of dialogue, Catholic theologians and those of other traditions seek to secure agreement on Church-dividing questions, but the Catholic participants cannot suspend their commitment to the Catholic Church’s own established doctrines.
ii) Should separated Christians be understood as participating in and contributing to the sensus fidelium in some manner? The answer here is undoubtedly in the affirmative. The Catholic Church acknowledges that ‘many elements of sanctification and truth’ are to be found outside her own visible bounds, that ‘certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasised’ in other communities, and that ecumenical dialogue helps her to deepen and clarify her own understanding of the Gospel. (Sensus fidei in the life of the Church.)
Complete and total heresy.
The Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church is complete in and of itself. There is no need to gather the “sensus fidelium” of the Protestants and the Orthodox as they are outside her maternal bosom and cleave to heresies of one sort or another. The Catholic Church alone is the guardian of truth and the sole means of human sanctification. None other.
This has sprung from within the “same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning”?
Part two, which will be published tomorrow, the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, will deal with the recourse the new “unofficial” official document has to the role of “proper” kind of “public opinion,” which, of course, has been used to prepare the Instrumentum Laboris that will be issued just hours after the posting of this commentary (see, for example, Always Asking All The Wrong Questions, part one and Always Asking All the Wrong Questions, part two.)
There must be a new sense for a new faith, a faith that is the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Faith.
Prepare well for tomorrow’s great feast day on this octave day of the Solemnity of Corpus Christi and the Commemoration of Saints John and Paul, praying a few more Rosaries in reparations for the wounds that the conciliar revolutionaries have inflicted upon the twin, matchless Hearts, the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints John and Paul, pray for us.