An Awakening Or A Descent Into Confussion?

The coiner of the mythical "hermeneutics of continuity" ["Benedict XVI"] praying at the Blue Mosque in Turkey. This "hermeneutics of continuity" lends itself to the defense of the proposition that there is no "Novus Ordo Church", an alliance quite shockingly scandalous...  

Preamble:

In the evening of March 5th, while on a commercial break I stumbled upon a thread of posts on X making reference to the February 2024 Newsletter of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary -once my alma mater. On reading the post, Sister Consistency and Brother Coherence, always at the service of Holy Mother Church, cried out and passionately appealed to me to lend them my feeble voice for them to respond to a duty call. 

The duty calling Sister Consistency and Brother Coherence was to clear any doubts as to "whether there is a Novus Ordo Church". 

A Review: 

A historic reiteration that got darling Siter Consistency and Brother Coherence started:
an awakening from a 'theological slumber' or lamentably scandalous theological retrogression? 

Noteworthy is that the occasion of the famed Newsletter is not in any way the first time for it to be affirmed [by the Rector the Most Holy Trinity Seminary] that "there is no novus ordo church" but "a novus ordo religion, which is a false religion". This was simply a historic reiteration. 

Yes. Bp. Sanborn in particular, and the defenders of the "Material Pope Thesis" in general, have been [lately] consistent in the vehement insistence that though the Novus Ordo is a new religion it is neither a separate church nor a new non-Catholic sect. 

This zealous insistence informs the first part of the first conclusion in Fr. Okerulu' defense of Theological Sedevacantist position. He stated that: “The institution that proceeded from the Second Vatican Council must be considered as a non-Catholic sect”. And, in his fine explanation, he noted that: 

"...the formal definition of a sect,... accurately embraces all institutions that have deviated from the Catholic Church even if they retained the Catholic structures and offices. It is interesting to note that the essential definition of a sect does not include a prior condemnation by the Church. In fact history proves that this condemnation is not even required on the part of the Church. A religious assembly must be considered a non-Catholic sect as long as their negation of the Catholic Faith is public."

Also, Fr. Lehtoranta in his article on Totalism Vs Cassiciacum Thesis  decries how the defenders of the Material Pope Thesis insist that Bergoglio's church is not a separate church. To them, in the words of Fr. Desposito: 

Technically, Vatican II was the beginning of a new religion, but not of a new Church

 Fr. Lehtoranta goes on to note, and rightly so, that:

Here we see how the Thesis attempts to build its own alternative reality. Little bit like in nominalism, an idea “describes” some concept which doesn’t necessarily coincide with reality at all. Things are not how they look like. It also resembles Kantianism, where the “phenomenon” as our mind’s idea is really extinct from the thing itself, which our mind cannot grasp. So in this made-up Thesis world, it might appear that this church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church, but, against all sense-information, the true Church of Christ is still intact in it. This is a concept which the Totalists reject completely. We say that the election of John XXIII in 1958 was the beginning of both new religion and a new church.  Completely independently of anyone’s thoughts, the church organization of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which is clearly a visible entity, either is the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e. the Catholic Church, or it is not. There is no third option. That’s why the opponents of the Thesis are called Totalists, because we totally reject the idea that this heretical sect of Bergoglio has anything to do with the true Church of Christ, either legally or in reality... [emphasis added]

Yes. The first obvious logical impression created in saying that novus ordo false religion is not a separate church is that presently, in the One Roman Catholic Church there are two religions: one true - the Catholic; the other false - the novus ordo. The is the primal logical implications of finely distinguishing between "Catholic Church" and "Catholic Religion". 

But, as a matter of fact, in the usage of the Church, both expressions are used interchangeably. For instance, in condemning a proposition of indifferentism in the syllabus of errors the idea that there is a "Christian religion" outside the Catholic Church is roundly trashed: 

Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to serve God as well as in the Catholic Church. [18th condemned proposition, Denz. 1918]

Thus, if there is a novus ordo religion other that the Catholic Religion, it must belong to an "organization separate from the Catholic Church". 

A Substantial Paradigm Shift:

As a matter of fact, the Most Reverend Rector of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary has not always given this response to the question whether there is a 'novus ordo Church'. It is, however, not clear at what point the substantial paradigm shift took place. Some years ago, he gave a rather moving sermon titled "cut from the novus ordo". Introducing the sermon, he had these to say:

"The title of my sermon is "you have to cut from the novus ordo". The reason...is because I occasionally have an understanding from people that they have not sufficiently cut from the novus ordo. That they come [here] for Mass regularly, but they still have a finger in the novus ordo pie so to speak. And they still regard it as the Catholic Church... just as light and darkness are opposed so the Holy Spirit and falsehood. And for this reason, it is necessary to cut from the novus ordo because it is a false Church. It is a false church for the reasons that I have explained to you in other sermons... [emphasis added]

Later on in the sermon he said that:

...it is necessary to cut completely from the Novus Ordo  and avoid it, and treat in the same way that you would avoid and treat the Lutheran church of America... some  continue to see this new church as the Roman Catholic Church... mentally, and psychologically break from the Novus Ordo, it is not the Catholic Church, - it has the appearance of being it, but it is not the Catholic Church. Break from it"

So, some years ago, to the question whether there is a "Novus ordo church" the answer was categorically "yes". However, to the same question NOW the same respondent answers "no". What should we make of it all???!!!

Reasons For the Previous Answer:

The reasons given for which a certain entity tagged 'novus ordo church' was declared both a false church and false religion and NOT to be the Catholic Church by the Most Reverend Rector of Most Holy Trinity seminary admitted, and rightly so, falls under the following categories:

1. The Novus Ordo Church is a false Church because "it officially teaches doctrines which are contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church".
2.  The 'novus Ordo Church' has false rites.
3. The novus ordo church has evil laws, laws not conducive to eternal salvation but to hell e.g. inter-communion with protestants, [and of course inter-religious worship.]

On the first point, a quick sample of the false doctrines officially taught by the novus ordo church was given by way of summary:

...that the Catholic Church is not strictly identified with the One True Church of Christ; heresy concerning religious liberty, the exact thing condemned by Pope Pius IX, Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Leo XII; heresy concerning the necessity of the Church for salvation; heresy concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.

Now, while these reasons still hold true, the entity called 'novus ordo' is being denied the status of being a separate 'church', even though these reasons made her qualify for such status in the past. What exactly should we make of it all???!!!

Novus Ordo: A Non-Catholic Sect:

In the same sermon, the Most Reverend Rector of Most Holy Trinity seminary bewailed those who are still confused about the issues concerning Catholic Buildings passing into heresy in our time as during the English reformation. These, he said "look forward to the day when they can have the traditional Latin Mass in the Novus ordo Church", thus able to "exercise their preference without stepping out of the auspices of Novus ordo church". He insisted, and rightly so, that:

...to reduce the Catholic Church to such a state where you have contradictory faiths under the umbrella of the same church is to turn it into a sect. Every sect has that... to split the [Catholic] Church into splinters of conservative or liberal observance is to reduce the Catholic Church to a sect. It no longer has the quality of being Catholic"

More so, not very long ago, while writing on "The Death of Ratzinger", identifying him as a 'conservative,

His Excellency went on to underline that: 

"It is the characteristic of non-Catholic sects to have liberal and conservative branches. The very term “conservative” implies the legitimacy of its correlative, namely “liberal.” So there are liberal and conservative Jews, liberal and conservative Protestants, liberal and conservative Moslems."

Modernist Papal imposters: Radical-conservative Ratzinger:  who, according to Bp. Sanborn, and truly so, was among those that inspired and directed godless revolution of Vatican II which infected dogma, morals, discipline, canon law, and the liturgy; and radical-liberal Bergoglio: who is vilified for merely being a consistent Vatican II proponent. According to the Material Pope Thesis strongly defended by Bp. Sanborn, they are both legitimate Catholic Popes 'materially but not formally -with material but not formal authority: both being heads and promoters of a religion affirmed by Bp. Sanborn to be 'diametrically opposed to the Catholic Religion., -a 'poisonous religion': which, the Material Pope Thesis defenders insist cannot be designated as Catholic Church 'formally' -but 'materially'! These 'legal-material-Catholic-Popes': executors of the conciliabulum -the illegal and phony Vatican II Council...

Thus, it is characteristic of "non-Catholic Sects" that there is the legitimate division into "conservative " and "liberal" branches: each respects the rights of the other since they are equal in their difference. There, the ruling team determines how the affairs are steered: thus, with the radical-conservative Ratzinger in power with his conservative cohort, a version of the Traditional Latin Mass was permitted, albeit with a modernist taint; while with the radical-liberal Bergoglio in charge with his liberal cohort, it is outlawed.

The shocking twist here is that His Excellency wrote this while he and the other defenders of the "Material Pope Thesis" in general, continued in the vehement insistence that though the Novus Ordo is a new religion, it is neither a separate church nor a new non-Catholic sect. 

Material Continuity - Cause of Confusion:

Now, based on the principle of identity based on what is essential to a reality, the Most Reverend Rector of Most Holy Trinity seminary in the same sermon, "cut from the Novus Ordo" insisted vehemently that the novus ordo church "has the appearance of being the Roman Catholic Church" and noted that this is "one of the reasons for confusion". He went on to liken the novus ordo church to a corpse, calling it "the corpse of the Catholic Church". He said:

just like the corpse at the funeral home looks very much like the living person, so this corpse of the Catholic Church which has the life of God pulled out of it looks like what was - the same buildings, in many cases the same people and the same structures of hierarchy - but because they are imposing [this] heresy the life of God is not in it... [emphasis added]

In the same vein, this 'corpse of the Catholic Church' infused by the "life" of [modernist] heresy, but "having the appearance of Catholic Church" he calls the "Frankenstein church", "monster church". He insisted that the use of this analogy is "perfect" and a "good explanation of what is taking place". And thus far in this matter there is nothing to disagree with.

Summing Up:

• In a historic sermon, Bp. Sanborn affirmed that there a novus ordo church and that it is a false church. In the same sermon he implied that the novus ordo church is a non-Catholic sect and confirms that while analyzing conservative Ratzinger. 
• But in order to defend the material Pope Thesis, he reiterates vehemently that the Novus Ordo is a new religion, but it is neither a separate church nor a new non-Catholic sect. 
• This "Thesis" which make its defenders to affirm contradictory things [as I have shown in this memorial reflection] is affirmed to be "the only correct response" to "the Vatican II problem in a Catholic way...both because of the intrinsic evidence for it, and because it preserves both the continuity of apostolic succession (the material) and the indefectibility of the Catholic Church (the formal)". Meanwhile, "most" of the "positions" providing solutions to the Vatican II problem are affirmed to be "objectively... erroneous, and dangerously so, since they would easily lead to heresy".
• The 'material continuity' he once affirmed as being 'a cause of confusion' to many, which confusion makes them still to regard the novus ordo 'Frankenstein church' as the Catholic Church, the same "material continuity" is cited in defense of the Material Pope Thesis.
• Though the novus ordo is now said not to be a 'separate organization' from the Catholic Church, Bishop Sanborn continues to urge people to 'cut from novus ordo" just as he did when he considered it a false church and a false religion.  

Taking all of these into consideration, who does not see that "to know the Thesis is to reject it"?!!!

Among other things:

• It makes its adherents erect an alternate reality with a nominalist ambience.
• It makes its adherents affirm contradictory things.
• It makes them give in to the temptation to twist historical fact in search of precedence in its favor [see the of "Victor III & The Thesis"]
• It makes them obfuscate the visibility of the Catholic Church.
• It makes them to be set against indefectibility while poised as defenders of Apostolicity: affirming that the guarantors of Apostolicity are none but the purveyors of apostate apostolicity.
• It makes them sorely confuse like many today. They confuse "the corpse" of the Catholic Church "which has the life of God pulled out of it" and "looks like what was - the same buildings, in many cases the same people and the same structures of hierarchy; they confuse this for the Catholic Church whose animating principle is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. 

Now, is it not the case that the Material Pope Thesis rather is "objectively... erroneous, and dangerously so, since" IT "would easily lead to heresy"? Is it not easy to see how the Thesis leads to heresy objectively?

Well, in the company of darling Sister Consistency and Brother Coherence, let anyone with an informed Catholic Common Sense see and judge justly.

To know the Thesis is to reject it, and not otherwise...