Dust thou art: “The impious fashion of heretics”

“For every human creature it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” – Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 18 November 1302 HERE

As in, he is your Monarch, you are his Subject. His loyal subject. You must be faithful to him, because as Christ’s Vicar, he is most deserving of your fidelity.

Your salvation depends on it.

If he tells you that “The tradition of the church is always in motion”, meaning there is no rock, there is nothing that’s unchangeable, we must always move forward, then you are bound to be faithful. If he tells you that “The nostalgia of the ‘integralists’ is to return to the ashes, but that is not Catholic,” then you are bound to be faithful. If he tells you that you need to pray for the future of the EU, if he tells you that walls are sinful, if he tells you that questioning climate change is sinful, if he tells you that the death penalty is sinful, if he tells you that inviting unrepentant fornicating adulterers to sacrilegiously receive Holy Communion is “WHAT GOD HIMSELF IS ASKING,” HERE HERE HERE HERE   …just remember that the fate of your eternal soul is bound up in your fidelity to this man.

Please remember this the next time you go on social media and declare with all sincerity that Bergoglio is totally obviously universally peacefully the pope and there is zero evidence to the contrary shut up.

Modernists and their admirers should remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: The method and principles which have served the doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science (Syll. Prop. 13). They exercise all their ingenuity in diminishing the force and falsifying the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight. But for Catholics the second Council of Nicea will always have the force of law, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavour by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church; and Catholics will hold for law, also, the profession of the fourth Council of Constantinople: We therefore profess to conserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV. and Pius IX., ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.  – Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi p.42, 8 September 1907 HERE

 

 

27 thoughts on “Dust thou art: “The impious fashion of heretics”

  1. On the contrary, the claim that every human creature must be subject to the pontiff is false.
    Bergoglio is the pontiff, but he is a teacher of falsehood.
    The solution is to understand that conscience is above the pope and one may refuse to follow an evil pope like Bergoglio.
    I agree, though, that Bergoglio promotes homosexuality and causes bad Holy Communions.

  2. I have read Session 11 in full from your link. thank you. (Only Session 11 – the rest is too long for now!)
    In no place within this session is there a Definition.
    For infallibility, a Council must promulgate a definition – and make it very clear that it is a definition.
    So nothing in this part of the council documents are covered by infallibility and hence they cannot be called ‘teaching’ – even if most of it is okay.

  3. Moreover Mark, if the non-infallible claim that “every human creature should be subject to the Roman pontiff” were true, then St. Paul was wrong to “resist Peter to his face” and to say “Cephas was clearly wrong” in the Acts.

  4. I hear you, Mark, indeed. Some of the conditions of infallibility are indeed fulfilled, but not all.
    The whole of a Session, many paragraphs long, cannot be considered a definition or one very very long dogma.

  5. Wait a minute. I have been talking about the wrong document. Now I see it at the bottom of Unam Sanctam
    You are right indeed. I must either apologize or quibble about the meaning of the word ‘subject’.
    I must back track and say you seem to be right.

    1. Another question to ask would be: Does being “subject” to the Roman Pontiff mean following him in *everything* he does, and believing *everything* he believes?
      Another good question would be: What exactly does the term ‘Roman Pontiff’ mean *in the context of the definition*? Does it mean the *person* of whoever is currently holding the office? (And if it does, then see again the first question). Does it mean the office of the papacy (i.e. does it mean to be subject to not just today’s pope, but all popes throughout history, insofar as they do or did the very JOB that the papacy was instituted by Christ to achieve, which is to Rule in accordance with the Faith, and to teach that Faith clearly and unequivocally)?
      A little application of the sensus catholicus will tell us one thing for sure: We do NOT have to, and are gravely obliged NOT to, be subject to heresy.
      As far as the rest is concerned, of great help will be (again!) Dz1839:
      “…the Roman Pontiff, [only] when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his *supreme* apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals that *has to be held* by the *universal* Church, through the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed…”
      And don’t forget the immediately following Dz1840:
      “But if anyone presumes to contradict this *definition* of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”
      So it is a heresy to contradict Dz1839.
      And note well: The famous Petrine Promise is also defined in Dz1839. The pope’s protection from error is guaranteed by Christ’s promise *only* under the conditions mentioned. There is then no promise of Christ to prevent a pope from being in any and every way evil outside these conditions. (That doesn’t mean he *won’t* protect him. It DOES mean that He doesn’t HAVE to; a true pope *could* be evil in every way, including heresy, outside these conditions).
      That means a pope could, for instance, preach anthropogenic global warming, even pretending to use his supreme authority and bind all the faithful. It would be a total fail: has nothing to do with the object of infallibility; faith or morals.
      That means a pope could, for instance, teach that active adulterers can receive Communion. It surely has to do with morals, but unless he attempts to use his supreme authority and bind all the faithful…ain’t happening. The faithful will not only not be obliged to believe or practice that, but they will be obliged NOT to, because his authority in that case is null, being totally trumped by Tradition and the teaching of all his predecessors.
      But now, if a pope DID attempt to use his supreme authority and bind all the faithful to the teaching that active adulterers can receive Communion, what would that mean? That now, from being recognized by Infallible Tradition for 2000+ years that reception of Communion by such persons would be a mortal sin, the current pope has suddenly reversed that, and turned white into black?
      Obviously not.
      THAT would mean that the supposed current pope was never the pope.

      BTW, not saying Bergoglio is the pope or not. Not within my pay grade. Just saying, that, so far, he has done nothing that shows that the Petrine Promise has been violated. In other words, if he’s not pope, it’s not because he’s a flaming heretic, or a worse than worthless arrogant hypocritical jerk. It would be because of something like, oh, an invalid resignation of BXVI, or something like that.

      1. “That means a pope could, for instance, teach that active adulterers can receive Communion. It surely has to do with morals, but unless he attempts to use his supreme authority and bind all the faithful…ain’t happening.”

        Okay, so does that mean his subjects in Argentina are bound to accept Communion for adulterers, and the priests are obliged to administer it? Because that’s what he said, and if he is the True Roman Pontiff, they are obliged to obey. “There is no other interpretation.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-no-other-interpretation-of-amoris-laetitia-than-allowing-communion-for

      2. He’s not Pope because the current Pope is still there, (“now and forever, safely within the enclosure of St. Peter”).

        We can’t have two Popes, sitting side by side, receiving new Cardinals into the College. It doesn’t take a Doctor of Divinity degree to know that.

        That picture, in the previous Nonvenipacem post, when I first saw the backs of their white capped heads, literally made me nauseous for a moment. That is perhaps the most evil thing ever to befall the Church. And the proof is in the fruit of the new guy.

      3. Correct me if I’m wrong.
        It was St Kajetan (?) who said that is is our duty to resist heretical pope. Other saints states similar. Pope is monarch but he is not free to do whatever he will. He is bound by Magisterium and Tradition, if he’s not following those, we are not obliged to follow, on the contrary.
        In my opinion this is mistake shared by, big generalization here, Novus Ordo and sedevacantists. They do not make distinction mentioned above and look at papacy as infallible in every aspect. When pope (again, speaking very roughly) diverge from Magisterium/Tradition they are forced to reject this pope or reject Tradition.

      4. I think most of the saints, including the ones opining the correct reaction to a heretical pope, would also consider a heretical pope as impossible, or that the heresy itself proves he isn’t ontologically the pope. In the age of Bergoglio, we are faced with the question of whether or not a non-Catholic can be pope. Such would be a valid question even if the Benedict situation didn’t exist.

      5. I’m not sure if ‘theorizing’ about ‘heretical’ pope applies to all saints. Ann Barnhardt showed that this is the case with St Robert Belarmine but others… not necessary. I put word heretical in quotes to indicate that I don;t mean strictly formal heresies by this term, but also all kind of errors. Although you may be right if we restrict ourseves to formal heresies I didn’t think and didn’t read about how far pope (and faithful) are protected fro errors.

        ‘whether or not a non-Catholic can be pope”

        I think that question was answered by St Benedict (?). If I remember correctly it was related to election of non catholic person. What happens if pope lost faith after elected (= lost his mind)… this is not easy street. Luckily (sic!) we dont have to deal with this question at the moment.

        Anyway. point is that obedience to pope doesn’t mean blind obedience. This is pretty clear to me. Absolute obedience is a dream of Church enemies: if faithful blindly follow, then nothing easier than capture top position to lead all souls wherever you wish.
        I distinct between justified disobedience to pope, where papal primacy is not in question at all (see Abp Lefebvre’s ((not proclaimed saint yet, to my knowledge)) example) and disobedience that steams from rejection of papacy (ie. protestants).

        We are subjects to pope but we are also obliged not to follow him into sin. Sometimes, unfortunately, you have to choose. What to do in case of discrepancy between popes teaching and Tradition? Correct pope in respectful way, if your position allows that, and pray for him but do not follow into error. How to know if pope is in error? Do we have to judge pope’s words by ourselves? No, this is pretty easy if we know Magisterium and Tradition and Scripture. If we don’ t – things are getting little bit more complicated 🙂

      6. @ Mark’s post of June 3, 2019,
        Bergoglio’s statement concerning the Argentine bishops statement is not infallible just because he says “there are no other interpretations”.
        He did not engage his supreme authority by attempting to bind the entire Church in a solemn statement. We know this because he has not excommunicated, or even censured, or even complained (that I know of), when other bishops and/or even entire episcopal conferences (e.g. that of Poland, I believe), have rejected this interpretation.
        Clearly, what he means by “there are no other interpretations” is that there are no other interpretations of *his personal* thought and intent. It does not mean there are no other interpretations consonant with Catholic dogma.
        So, as far as I can see…NO, it does not mean that anyone is obliged to accept or administer Communion for adulterers. Since his teaching is contrary to Infallible Tradition, he would have to *enforce* obedience to his dumb*** opinion under pain of excommunication/anathema; that is, he would have to solemnly and clearly proclaim that his “interpretation” was DOGMA, binding all the faithful.
        And…of course…if he did that, he would be attempting to proclaim a dogma directly contrary to a previous dogma…which would prove that he did not have the protection of the Petrine Promise, which would in turn prove that he was an antipope.
        But he hasn’t used his supreme authority to attempt that yet.
        Unfortunately, the bar steward is probably too Peronistically cunning to do that.
        At any rate, the TRUE Catholic Faith is scintillatingly consistent; absolutely wonderful. It NEVER contradicts itself. This is just another example of that.

      7. BTW, agree with MC that it is not the common opinion, of theologians at least, that the pope can never be a heretic, even a formal (pertinacious one).
        “In my opinion this is mistake shared by, big generalization here, Novus Ordo and sedevacantists. They do not make distinction mentioned above and look at papacy as infallible in every aspect. When pope (again, speaking very roughly) diverge from Magisterium/Tradition they are forced to reject this pope or reject Tradition.”
        Yep, that’s where EPI (Exaggerated Papal Infallibilism) and UPI (Universal Papal Infallibilism) lead you…right out of the Church, and into an idolatrous worship of a man or a dream.
        Bellarmine himself admitted that, although he held that a pope could never become a formal heretic, his opinion was NOT the common opinion.
        For a thorough study of this issue, see http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Pope_Bad.pdf.

      8. @Smith
        ‘Oldish’ post but let me refer to it, mostly with agreement, by answering your questions acordingly to my knowledge, with hope I will be correcter if wrong 🙂

        Does being “subject” to the Roman Pontiff mean following him in *everything* he does, and believing *everything* he believes?”

        No.

        ”What exactly does the term ‘Roman Pontiff’ mean *in the context of the definition*?

        Reigning pope, who at given time occupy Peter’s Seat.

        ”Does it mean the *person* of whoever is currently holding the office?

        Yes.

        ”Does it mean the office of the papacy (i.e. does it mean to be subject to not just today’s pope, but all popes throughout history, insofar as they do or did the very JOB that the papacy was instituted by Christ to achieve, which is to Rule in accordance with the Faith, and to teach that Faith clearly and unequivocally)?

        No, it means person who is the pope at given time. This is logical, imo. Pope governs the Church in his time, not in the past. Thus reigning pope can reverse administrative decision of previous popes (ie. case of Jesuits or rules of conclave). At the same time it needs to be pointed out (?) that pope does not have authority to change Magisterium, he can attempt to, or can pretend he does but in fact such actions are fruitless. In this sense we are bound buy infallible (doctrinal) teaching of all past popes.

        After doctrine of papal infallibility was announced the question arisen about what would happen if future pope attempt, using his Office as described in dogma, announce something contradictory to Magisterium. The answer was: ‘just ignore him’. Now, this seems like smarty way around, but it is very practical approach that answer many questions. This answer is not Dogma and one can have different opinion (to my knowledge).

        “That means a pope could, for instance, preach anthropogenic global warming, even pretending to use his supreme authority and bind all the faithful. It would be a total fail: has nothing to do with the object of infallibility; faith or morals.”

        Exactly (to my knowledge). Only ‘EPI (Exaggerated Papal Infallibilism) and UPI (Universal Papal Infallibilism)’ can lead us astray.

      9. If infallibility is reduced to the definition you lay out here, then what good is it, and how could the faithful ever be sure of anything? We can’t use this fake papacy to tear down everything we thought we knew about the papacy because it must never have been true if Jorge is really the pope. Take a look at my most current blog post.

      10. “If infallibility is reduced to the definition you lay out here…”

        My first answer to this post seems to be lost.
        I’m not sure if this is addressed to Smith or to me.
        I use full definition, not reduced one. Dogma of infallibility ensures faithful not confuses. I dont understand your objection. Also actions of Jorge do not jeopardize this dogma in slightest, regardless if he is the pope or not.
        If you wish, please, explain why do you think it is not so. You can answer under other blog-post, I hope I will be able to find it.

      11. Dear Mark and MC,
        I appreciate this discussion.
        MC I think has made an important distinction. Without citing authorities (which to my mind is not necessary anyway) he simply reasons to two points:
        1) You have to be subject to the present reigning Pontiff because (in my own reformulation of his argument) the present pope does make decisions that require obedience (e.g. changes in Church discipline). But…
        2) When these decrees or requests contradict dogma, you must ignore them.
        Apropos of this, I recall that the oath of office that a new pope used to take (maybe still does take?) requires from him the strongest assertions that he will preserve Tradition, in line with his predecessors.

      12. Smith
        Thank you for kind words. Please remember that what I say always carries possibilities of error. I present my thinking with hope that somebody can benefit from it, at the same time I hope that any mistakes of mine will be revealed and corrected.
        That said, I’m ready to fight as long as I’m convinced that my position is aligned with Church teachings.

      13. Mark,
        I’m looking into that papal oath. I’ve found it interesting. So interesting that it’s going to take a little while to sort out the truth about it.

      14. In answer to your request about the Papal Oath, Mark, I started poking around.
        What I found turned out to be interesting, but it resulted in a…project.

        EWTN has an article on this here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur397.htm
        The article is a response to someone asking about it, in the context of this oath being used as an argument by sedevacantists to show that the modern popes have been false popes because they haven’t taken it. (How not taking the oath would make their election invalid is beyond me, but whatever.)
        An obvious Modernist, and Legionary of Christ, a Fr. McNamara, wrote the article/response, and given his infection with Exaggerated Papal Infallibilism, spoke of it as an “alleged” and “supposed” oath, as if it never really existed, which it most certainly did. But then he contradicts his own insinuation. He accepts that it really did exist, but states:
        “…it is highly unlikely that this oath was ever used at all in papal coronations and certainly not from the sixth to the 20th centuries given that the earliest recorded papal coronation ceremony is that of Pope Celestine II in 1143.”

        The author cites the Wiki article on this, found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_oath_(traditionalist_Catholic)
        This article confirms this, by saying: “There is no evidence that any pope took such an oath during his coronation ceremony.”
        This is a typical Modernist semantical deception. While technically true, since a *coronation* ceremony as such did not begin to be used until 1143 A.D., which was after the oath fell out of use, that does not mean the oath was NOT used at all. It would have been used in the installation/inauguration of a new pope, which of course is all that matters. Even if there were no historical record of particular installation ceremonies that specifically mention its use, it had to be used at least sometimes, for otherwise what would be the point of having it in the Liber Diurnus; the official book of protocols for the papal court?

        The heart of the Wiki article is this:
        “The “Papal Oath” that Traditionalists speak of appears to be loosely based on the text of the profession of faith, addressed to Saint Peter, included, as part of another document, in the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, a collection of formularies for correspondence or decrees, some of which may even date from before the time of Pope Gregory I (590-604)…
        *While the collection was used in the papal chancery until the 11th century*, the content of the document that contains the profession of faith shows that this formulary can have been used only at some time or times in the short period between the election of Pope Conon (686–687) and that of Pope Zachary (741–752); and the profession of faith speaks of the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681) as having been held recently.”
        Note: IMHO, Wiki’s assumption that the oath was not used after the time of Zachary is quite rash, as it places an arbitrary limitation on what the Church — famous for its long view of history — would consider to be “recent”. Moreover, it does not allow for the distinct possibility that later editions of the Liber Diurnus may have been modified to eliminate such anachronisms, or the text even adapted ex tempore, without a change to the book itself. Further, the famous Church historian, Bishop Hefele, says that this or a similar oath was used by every pope from even the 5th century through the 11th. (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Opposition_to_Papal_Infallibility)

        A much more reliable source, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, was referenced by Wiki: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09215c.htm. Here are some key passages:
        “A miscellaneous collection of ecclesiastical formularies used in the papal chancery until the eleventh century…The Liber Diurnus dates back to the eighth century.”
        “Lucas Holstenius was the first who undertook to edit the Liber Diurnus. He had found one manuscript of it in the monastery of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme at Rome, and obtained another from the Jesuit Collège de Clermont at Paris; but as Holstenius died in the meantime and his notes could not be found, this edition printed at Rome in 1650 was withheld from publication, by advice of the ecclesiastical censors, and the copies put away in a room at the Vatican. The reason for so doing was apparently formula lxxxiv, which contained the profession of faith of the newly elected pope, in which the latter recognized the Sixth General Council and its anathemas against Pope Honorius for his (alleged) Monothelism. The edition of Holstenius was reprinted at Rome in 1658; but was again withdrawn in 1662 by papal authority, though in 1725 Benedict XIII permitted the issue of some copies. From the Clermont manuscript, which has since disappeared, Garnier prepared a new edition of the Liber Diurnus (Paris, 1680), but it is very inaccurate, and contains arbitrary alterations of the text. In his “Museum Italicum” (I, II, 32 sqq.) Mabillon issued a supplement to this edition of Garnier. From these materials, the Liber Diurnus was reprinted at Basle (1741), at Vienna (1762), and by Migne (P.L., CV, Paris, 1851). The first good edition, as stated above, we owe to Eug. de Rozière (Liber Diurnus ou Recueil des formules usitées par la Chancellerie pontificale du Ve au XIe siècle, Paris, 1869). In the interest of this edition Daremberg and Renan compared Garnier’s text with the Vatican manuscript, then regarded as the only authentic one. From this manuscript Th. von Sickel prepared a critical edition of the text: “Liber Diurnus Rom. Pont. ex unico codice Vaticano denuo ed.” (Vienna, 1889). Just after the appearance of this work, however, Ceriani announced the discovery of a new manuscript, originally from Bobbio, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan; towards the end this was more complete than the Vatican manuscript. This text was published by Achille Ratti (the future Pius Xi), in Milan, in 1891.”

        The Old Catholic Encyclopedia information on the editions in not entirely up to date, as the Clermont edition has been rediscovered, and a couple of other researches have been conducted.

        One may note that the Wiki article referenced above quotes reliable sources, one of these being the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. The following passage from Wiki is notable:

        “The Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council [3rd of Constantinople] state: “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”
        However, Pope Leo II’s letter of confirmation of the Council authoritatively alters the Council’s condemnation so as to criticize Honorius not for teaching or committing heresy, but for “imprudent economy of silence”. Leo’s letter states: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, … and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius.” Persons such as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine have challenged accusations that Pope Honorius I taught heresy.”

        What is intriguing here is that, although Leo II backpedaled 3rd Constantinople’s condemnation as to the *reason* for the anathema (change from accusation of active support for Monothelitism to passive support for it), he did not remove the anathema itself, but rather reaffirmed it. The question is: How can someone be anathematized; which is to say, *excommunicated*, for mere “guilty negligence” in allowing a heresy to spread? The only answers I see are two:
        1) The guilty negligence was determined to be such as to constitute adherence to the heresy itself, in which case Leo II simply stated the official judgment of the Church as to the fact that the excommunication of Honorius was incurred automatically (latae sententiae).
        2) Although not constituting heresy as such, thus not incurring automatic excommunication, Honorius’ negligence was judged by Leo so serious as to merit that Leo levy an excommunication for the negligence alone (excommunication ferendae sententiae).

        Be these things as they may, and regardless of the fact that, IMHO, there is no way to know with certainty which text of the Papal Oath is most accurate, I thought it might be useful to some people to have a translation of what most scholars would call the version which is at least available to the general public, and from a very well-respected source.
        This one is from Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. 105, cols. 40-44.
        In order to save space, I give my translation only. The Latin text is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_oath_(traditionalist_Catholic)

        In the name of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, etc. [indicate the date]
        I [name], by the mercy of God a priest, and through the grace of God elected as the humble future bishop of the Apostolic See, promise to thee, O Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles (to whom the Creator and Redeemer of all, the Lord Jesus Christ, handed over the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, for binding and loosing both in Heaven and on earth, saying: Whatever things thou shalt have bound on earth will be bound also in Heaven, and whatever thou shalt have loosed on earth will be loosed also in Heaven) and to thy Holy Church, which today, by thy protection I have undertaken to rule:
        [I promise] that this rightness of the true faith (which I have found in thy Holy Church, which Christ as Author [of it] handed over, through thy successors and disciples, even down to my insignificantness, to guard with all my efforts, [and] with thee as my helper, to tolerate to suffer even to life and blood the difficulties of the times.
        [I promise] to conserve all the dogmas of the Church handed down from thee, whether concerning the mystery of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, which is One God, or concerning the dispensation, which was made according to the flesh, of the Only Begotten Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, or those as are commended in universal Councils, and the Constitutions of the most approved Apostolic Pontiffs, as well as the writings of the Doctors of the Church; likewise, whichsoever pertain to the rectitude of your and our orthodox Faith.
        Also [I promise] to preserve unmutilated the holy and universal Councils: Nicea, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and second of Constantinople (which was celebrated in the times of Justinian the Prince, of holy memory. And along with them, by an equal honor and veneration, to heartily and [yet] more fully conserve the sixth holy Council [the 3rd of Constantinople], which Constantine, Prince of holy memory, and Agatho, my Apostolic predecessor, recently convened, and the things they preached, to preach; the things they condemned, in mouth and heart to condemn.
        But more diligently and energetically [I promise] to confirm, and no less preserve, all the decrees of our predecessor Apostolic Bishops, which they established in synod, and have been approved, and to guard [them] just as they have been established, in the stability of their vigor; and whatever or whoever they have condemned by a similar sentence of authority, or spoke against, [I promise] to condemn also by a like sentence of authority.
        The discipline and Rite of the Church, as I have found it, and have found passed on by my holy predecessors, [I promise] to guard unstained, and the things of the Church to preserve, and to work that they may be [thus] guarded undiminished.
        [I promise] to diminish or change nothing concerning Tradition, which by my most approved Predecessors I have found conserved, or to admit any novelty, but fervently, as being truly their disciple and follower, to conserve and venerate those Traditions with all my strength and efforts.
        But if something shall arise that is against the canonical discipline, [I promise] to amend it; to maintain the sacred canons and Constitutions of our Pontiffs as divine and celestial mandates, as knowing myself to be going to render to thee a reckoning concerning all the things which I am promising; a strict account in the Divine judgment, [to thee] whose station I carry on by Divine favor, and whose place I fill, aided by thine intercessions.
        If besides these things I shall have presumed to do anything, or if something may be presumed [and] I shall have permitted it, thou shalt not be favorable to me in that terrible day of Divine judgment.
        I beg thee also that thou wouldst proffer aid to me, constituted [as I am] in this corruptible life, that I may appear irreproachable before the face of the Judge of all, Our Lord Jesus Christ, when He shall have come to judge fearsomely concerning the things committed [to me], that He may make me to be a partaker [with those] of His right hand, and partner among the faithful disciples, and thy successors.
        [There follows a formulaic coda, which I summarize as:]
        Which profession of mine, as contained above, I have signed by my own hand, etc.

        As near as I can make out, this version was the source for the doctored verson being used by sedevacantists, and others who foolishly trust what is posted on their websites. Here is what Wiki says about those doctorings:

        “The traditionalists’ [sic — should be sedevacantists’] Papal Oath, if indeed based on the text in the Liber Diurnus [the Migne version I translated above], is a serious mistranslation. Much of it has no basis whatever in the historical document, including the paragraphs “I swear … defined and declared” and “Accordingly, without exclusion … blasphemous venture” and the phrase “I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I”.
        The traditionalists’ [sic — should be sedevacantists’] Papal Oath is addressed to Jesus Christ,[while Migne’s is addressed to St. Peter] and presents the Pope as his [Christ’s] successor,[which he isn’t, he is Peter’s successor] as Vicar of God,[more strictly, Vicar of Christ] endowed with a power of revelation (not just of maintaining an existing revelation) on a par (or almost) with Christ’s, and as a “successor” of Tradition.
        If the sedevacantist mistranslation is indeed based on the Migne, which I have rendered literally above, Wiki’s complaints of doctoring are, in the main, clearly well founded.

        What can we conclude from all this?

        1) The oath definitely did exist.
        2) Although not used in papal *coronations*, it was used, at least sometimes, between around 680 and 1000 A.D. Some say earlier versions were used even back to the 5th century. It fell out of use after ca. 1000 A.D.. The most likely reason that the oath was added to the protocols of papal elections (or modified and reinforced if already in use) was the scandal of Pope Honorius’ favoring of the Monothelite heresy, for which he was condemned in 680, at the Third Council of Constantinople, immediately before the creation of said oath.
        3) Holstenius rediscovered the Liber Diurnus, containing the oath, and produced an edition in 1650, based on the Clermont and Santa Croce source texts, but it was censored by Rome, most probably because the Papal Oath contained condemnations of Pope Honorius for the heresy of Monothelism.
        4) Garnier’s alleged inaccurate translation comes from the Clermont manuscript. It is not possible, without much and difficult further research, to know if or to what degree it was actually inaccurate. Interestingly, the Clermont ms. was one of the two sources used for the first, and censored, edition by Holstenius. There are several other versions extant, but they are not easily accessible (and I have not seen them). A huge research project would be required to know which are most likely more authentic, since ecclesiastical censors cannot be expected to be more objective than Holstenius or Garnier or anyone else. (Garnier actually addresses this point in his edition, found here: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0600-0800__AA_VV__Liber_Diurnus_Romanorum_Pontificum__LT.doc.html. Search the document for >§ VI. De causa Honorii summi Pontificis<, where he says: "This difficult case [of Honorius] has seemed to be a two-headed monster even to our own day; not the thing in itself, in my opinion, but that an affectation of minds has divided the writers into parties; for almost all bring to the dispute a prejudiced judgment…") Thus I have not tried to discover copies of the de Roziér, Sickel or Ratti editions.
        5) Sedevacantists, and perhaps some others, have apparently either taken Garnier's translation as their source for the Papal Oath, or much more likely, since Garnier seems to be an honest man, they have doctored this or whatever other source they have used, in order to strengthen the "anathematizing" force of its language.
        6) As a pertinent aside, whatever may be the anathematizing force of the Papal Oath against Honorius, it is not the only official Ecclesiastical condemnation, since, as mentioned, the Third Council of Constantinople had already solemnly done so, and then also Leo II. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I#Anathematization)
        7) It seems (to this writer anyway) that the Migne version I've translated above is quite strongly enough worded to satisfy a true Traditionalist. A sedevacantist, of course, is not satisfied with Tradition, since it does not permit him to bypass the hierarchy and proceed to an excommunication of a pope on his own non-existent "authority".

        This writer emphatically agrees with Bishop Schneider that an oath of this sort ought to be reintroduced into papal inauguration ceremonies. It would put a salutary moral pressure on the occupant of the Papal See, and it's plain that this was its original purpose.
        Fr. McNamara, on the other hand, thinks it was a good thing it was abandoned. He thinks that to take such an oath would imply that the pope-elect does not believe in God's protection of the Papal Office. This thinking is false on account of the fact that this protection is only guaranteed when the pope speaks ex cathedra, which popes very rarely do. At all other times they desperately need to pray for guidance and strength, or else they likely won't get it. More, Fr. McNamara's thinking is stupid. For even if his Exaggerated Papal Infallibilism were true (though in fact it's a heresy), he apparently thinks that God will be well-inclined toward a pope, or anyone else, who in effect tells Him: "Well, You've guaranteed me thus and such benefits. Cool. I don't have to ask you then, don't have to be grateful, don't have to do anything to earn them."
        Most of us pray every day the Act of Hope:
        O My God, I firmly trust that Thou wilt grant me eternal salvation, and the means to obtain it, because Thou art all good, and faithful to Thy promises.
        Yes, God has promised everyone sufficient grace to be saved. It doesn't mean we don't have to pray for it.

  6. Aqua: “when I first saw the backs of their white capped heads, literally made me nauseous for a moment.”

    That’s two of us. And could our Catholic ancestors ever have imagined a sight like that? Not in a million years.

Comments are closed.