False accusations by recusants rebutted and a great quote

+Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary+

Some people seemingly have no shame and simply cannot admit they are wrong. We speak here of a certain “recusant” site that has publicly stated a document of the Roman Pontiff was not properly quoted on this site and an inference was drawn on this blog that contradicts what the pope intended. This is a classic example of projection, not to mention a matter potentially libelous, and this should be taken as a warning. Such a grievous accusation, common to LibTrads, is one that cannot be tolerated.

What the recusants say

The betrayedcatholics blog on modesty now in question was featured HERE. We will now quote here what the recusant blog posted regarding St. Nicholas’ instructions to the Bulgarians: “We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia [which is the Latin for “breeches” or “knee-length pants”]) TO BE IRRELEVANT; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may.

“But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue. Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God’s gift, we could say many more.” (End of St. Nicholas I quote.)

What betrayedcatholics has said

1. In our blog, we were not talking about “breeches” or what today would be called pedal-pushers (femoralia), but loose-fitting, full-length women’s slacks.
2. They pretend we have misrepresented what the pope said because we did not quote him in full, (see full text of what the Pope wrote HERE, under Ch. LIX). These so-called recusants do this by placing emphasis on different parts of what the pope said and no emphasis on the language used in his opening statement or the final conclusion he arrives at in his remarks. First, Pope Nicholas I wrote: “We consider what you asked about pants TO BE IRRELEVANT…”  Do they not know the meaning of this word? Taken from Merriam-Webster, relevant means: (1) having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand; (2) affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion. The same source notes that irrelevant means NOT relevant; inapplicable. So are they going to make a matter the pope clearly intends to have no bearing on the issue at hand a major issue, against his will and the introductory statement to the contrary?

Secondly, the pope writes: “Pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may.” They then claim  that in saying this, and referring to ”putting on the new man,” (see above) the pope is stating he does not want women to wear pants. But the pope makes his own words clear in the succeeding paragraph of his instruction by stating that: “Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence.”

3. Yet pay attention to what the pope says after commenting on “the new man”: “But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; BUT REALLY DO WHAT YOU PLEASE. FOR WHETHER YOU OR YOURWOMEN WEAR OR DO NOT WEAR PANTS (femoralia) NEITHER IMPEDES YOUR SALVATION NOR LEADS TO ANY INCREASE OF YOUR VIRTUE.” How can one possibly misread this sentence?!

Excommunication for falsifying papal documents

The above is further evidence of how LibTrads mislead Catholics, placing their own interpretation on the clear words of the popes! As we have repeatedly cited Msgr. Fenton as stating before, NO ONE may dare to interpret these documents contrary to their obvious meaning — Pope Nicholas I’s words are perfectly understandable, and he is not even talking about full coverage, loose women’s slacks, but form-fitting pedal-pushers!  In their insistence on abiding by their own warped opinion of modesty in this regard, these Liberal-minded “Catholics” dare to misrepresent his very words and intent. THEY are the ones who are guilty of falsifying the meaning intended by Pope Nicholas I, not this author. But of course this was the very purpose of projecting blame — to deflect the guilt from themselves.

Perhaps they would be interested in knowing that there is an excommunication especially earmarked for misrepresentations of this kind, which states as follows: “All persons who forge or falsify letters, decrees or rescripts of the Apostolic See or with full knowledge of the forgery make use of the letters, decrees or rescripts, automatically incur EXCOMMUNICATION RESERVED IN A SPECIAL MANNER TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE” (Can. 2360 §1). Revs. Woywod-Smith comment on this canon: “The law of the code protects the official acts or documents not only of the Supreme Pontiff himself, but also of the Sacred Congregations and the Tribunals and Offices of the Holy See against forgery and mutilation and the willful use of forged or mutilated documents of the Apostolic See.”

Msgr. Fenton on honoring papal decisions on doctrinal matters

Surely even the recusants would agree that the wearing of pants by women is a matter of morals. Is it really necessary to remind them that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals?!  It is imperative that Catholic women know whether or not they are committing sin in wearing “breeches,” (women’s slacks). And the pope provided it above but the Puritanical LibTrads insist on distorting his words. This might not amount to an actual forgery, but we are forbidden to even attempt to interpret papal documents, so it would most likely qualify as a falsification. The serious nature of matters such as these is stressed below by Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, in his “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Allocutions,” The American Ecclesiastical Review, February 1956:

“Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved. Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided. A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth. Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his Acta, has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine. It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church. This holds true always and everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

“The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published Acta when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it. The Humani generis reminded its readers that “this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals.” Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and “to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See.’ In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.

“We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his Acta. The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself. The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the Humani generis. This information is contained in the text of that document. The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:

“And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith — that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition — to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore “to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,” is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist. What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks.”

“Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church. And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his Acta, he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice. There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings. They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities. These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements. The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the Acta” (end of Msgr. Fenton quote). 

And such individuals, obviously, still exist today. We remember another instance of this where a definite decision regarding the bishops as receiving their power from Christ only indirectly, but directly from the Roman Pontiffs. This was infallibly declared in Mystici Corporis Christi, Ad Sinarum Gentum and even by the Vatican Council. Two years ago it was called into question by an especially impertinent  LibTrad who tried to refute it with a quote from a German theologian whose translated works were known to contain errors of the sort Msgr, Fenton mentions above (see HERE). This definition was even recognized as such by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who Msgr. Fenton documented as testifying to this fact. This same individual once aligned himself with the recusant position but according to unconfirmed reports, later left the group.

Conclusion

The Acta did not exist in the time of  Pope Nicholas I. It came into existence later when, as Msgr. Fenton explains, it was necessary to silence those “deliberately flouting” the teachings of the Holy See. This, however, does not lessen the authority of what Pope Nicholas I teaches. For as Msgr. Fenton also notes, “The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these documents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian” (Msgr. J.C. Fenton,“The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Pt. II, ” Sept. 1949, AER). As Revs. Pohle-Preuss write in The Sacraments, Vol. IV: “It matters not what the private opinions of…theologians [are]. It is not the private opinions of theologians but the official decisions of the Church by which we must be guided.”

The recusants are scarcely theologians. They cannot produce one document from the Magisterium that specifically and unquestionably condemns the wearing of modest slacks by women. Do they really think that if this was such an important matter and that women were truly sinning by wearing slacks, something they already were doing in the 1940s and 1950s, the popes would not have been perfectly clear in their instructions concerning this? What a slap in the face to the Roman Pontiffs by insinuating they were remiss in not issuing such a prohibition! No one here is suggesting anyone switch to wearing slacks versus dresses or skirts, but we absolutely refuse to condemn others for wearing slacks when a pope has said it is “irrelevant” and no sin.

These recusants cannot and must not be allowed to interpret Pope Nicholas I as stating that pants are forbidden when he clearly does not do so. A better understanding of the English language and its usage would be helpful here, since this is what the Church instructs us to do whenever there is a doubt about any law or teaching (Can. 18), but they are not interested in that. They insist on acting as theologians when no one may dare to do so today, in believing as they wish to believe, for whatever reason. We may only quote those theologians loyal to the papacy writing on these topics, but most importantly it is the words and teachings of the popes that must always hold sway.  We have no right to our own opinion when a pope has clearly stated otherwise.

We have said it before and will continue to repeat it for as long as necessary: We follow the popes and those scholastics loyal to them, not the opinions of men. We are to obey God not man, and the Vicar His Son set over us to be the never-failing source of His Truth.

Great quote from a reader by  Fr. Charles B. Garside

(In his The Prophet of Carmel: The Life and Mission of Elias the Prophet written in 1873, Fr. Charles B. Garside was reacting to the false doctrines that had already entered “high places” in society and the Church. In his commentary on the life of St. Elias, he challenges Catholics of all times to take the correct position of active resistance in the face of error: The war must be waged on all fronts until the victory is achieved.)

“The world and the devil were never so successful as they are now in pretentiously disguising error under the garb of truth. Vices are enshrined as virtues in the attractive temple of falsehood. Immorality is idealized. Debased views of God and His creation, of the soul and the body, are openly processed in circles of rank and intellect.

“False doctrine is not only tolerated in the “high places” of social life; it is termed, as if in satire, “sound learning.” Presumptuous skepticism is canonized by popular acclamation, as not only a right but a duty, and the very perfection of mental and moral freedom. These are some of the hostile elements with which our present life is perilously charged.

“How can this array of foes be successfully met without a clear-sighted and persevering courage and how can this courage be obtained? Every Catholic is bound, according to his means and opportunity, to confront, denounce and resist the enemies of God. The war has to be waged by speech, by writing, by protests, by authority, by active and passive opposition, by sufferings, and by various other modes which need not be mentioned in detail.

“No class is exempt from military service in the great conflict which is perpetually raging. All are called to the ranks, no matter what may be their individual temperament or temptations. The contest is as unavoidable as it is difficult, but with the grace of God we shall succeed if we are “strong in faith.” “This is the victory that overcomes the world, even your faith.”

“Our adversaries may surpass us in station, talent and accomplishments. They may be clothed in them from head to foot, and we may, like Elias, be alone and unarmed, but we shall be the real “men of God.” We shall deliver our message without quivering; and though our personal Achab – whoever he may be – may refuse to believe in our words, we shall nevertheless, have borne testimony to the true God.”