Vatican II
Revelator
it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after a
scandalous Vatican 2 "pastoral" (we are NOT bound to follow it)Council
lacking both regularity and dignity, the Catholic religion
has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by another
religion, an evolving religion, a religion greatly influenced by Freemasonry
and
Marxism and inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly rejected
under the designation of "Modernism." Having created a "robber" Council that
raised a host of errors such as the denial of the Church's "Unity" and
Religious
Liberty to the level of an infallible teaching, the post-Conciliar "Church"
proceeded to abolish the Oath against Modernism and the Holy Office. What
other
purpose could such measures have than to deprive the Traditional Church -
the
Church of All Times - of all her defences? And what followed? The turning of
altars into tables, the changing of priests into "presidents," the
invalidating
of all the sacraments not acceptable to Protestants, the mistranslating of
the
Scriptures, and above all, the downgrading of Tabernacles and the
destruction of
the Mass - "humanist" and demagogic changes of the most serious nature.
Cardinal
Suenens was correct when he described this as "the French Revolution in the
Catholic Church."
Consider the principle that "by their fruits you shall know them." Now what
are
the fruits of the new religion? Priests by the thousands have abandoned
their
calling - of those remaining over 25% requested and were refused permission
to
marry. Monks and nuns laicized by the thousands. The seminaries are
virtually
deserted. The median age for priests in the United States being the late
fifties, with an anticipated drop to 40% of the present level by the end of
the
decade. Far more tragic: despite the wide range of "liturgies" offered -
conservative to radical chic - Catholics by the millions have turned away
from
the Church and for all practical purposes the youth is no longer interested
in
what she has to offer. Only 15% of the erstwhile faithful still attend
Sunday
Mass and among these communions are up while confessions are down,
suggesting
that even sin is dwindling away. Over 80% of married Catholics use birth
control
and do so in the belief that such violates no divine principle, divorce
statistics show no difference between Catholics and others; and in the
practical
realm complete chaos exists with regard to sexual behavior.
Along with all this is the corruption, nay destruction of doctrine and
theology.
The acceptance of evolution as a fact in every realm - be it biology,
theology,
sociology - even the Tielhardian thesis that God Himself evolves! The
abrogation
of Canons 1399 and 2318, the refusal of the new church to condemn out and
out
heretics and the blatant indulgence extended to those who like Hans Kung -
their
name is legion - would poison the thinking of the faithful are symptomatic
of
the wide-spread modernist malignancy. The self proclaimed "desacralization"
and
"demytholization" of the Church combined with the misrepresentation of
everything traditional has resulted in an all-pervasive familiarity and
vulgarity. Recent attempts to cover this over by dressing the presidents
(clergy) and nuns in traditional garb has in no way changed the situation.
Let those who have ears hear. The writing was on the wall from the very
opening
of the false Council. But who of us wished to listen. It's leitmotiv was
Aggiornamento ("updating to the times"; modernization), a concept inimical
to any religion based on eternal verities and
Revelation. Roncalli, alias John XXIII (who took the name of an anti-pope
against the Church's teachings that NO pope is to take the name of any
former pope), then declared his intention "to
safeguard the sacred deposit of the faith more effectively." It does not
take
much imagination to understand what he meant - and he did not hesitate to
declare that "...the substance of the ancient doctrine contained in the
deposit
of the faith is one thing, the manner in which it is expressed in
another..."
This claim is false and in fact satanic, for it opened the door to all the
betrayals and falsifications that followed. The traditional formulations
were
not superficial luxuries, they were guarantees of the truth and efficacy;
they
more then adequately expressed what they wished to say - their adequacy was
in
fact their raison d'etre. Is not the truth inseparable from its expression?
Was
it not the strength of the Church that the old expressions were always
valid?
They only displeased those who wished to make modernism, scientism, false
ecumenism, evolutionism
and socialism part of the "deposit of the faith."
One must take a phenomena for what it is. If one sees a tiger in the streets
of
New York one does not require a news broadcast to know that what one sees is
a
reality. One can deny its existence only at the risk of one's life.
Despite the obvious, there are those who, desiring to have the "best of both
worlds," would exculpate the post-Conciliar Church; and who seek to explain
why
is it that the "smoke of Satan" (words of Paul 6 who wrote his name with 3
sixes) has all but obscured "the dome of St. Peter's"?
Some claim that it is because the Council and the subsequent innovations
were
"badly interpreted." But, by whom? Others, loudly proclaiming their loyalty
to
those usurping the Chair of Peter, claim it is the fault of the bishops and
cardinals around him. But who appointed them? Since when has the principle
of
respondeat superior been abandoned? (Even hell has a hierarchical
structure.)
Despite the fact that such claims are often motivated by the desire "to
cover
Noah's drunkenness," they remain a combination of improbabilities and
hypocrisy.
Whether we like it or not, this blame must fall primarily upon the
post-conciliar "popes." Even though none of us are without an element of
culpability, it is they who must bear the burden. It is they who approved
the
Council and the Reforms, and without their approval neither the Council nor
the
Reforms would have any meaning or authority. It is they who have misapplied
the
principles of obedience in order to bring the erstwhile faithful into line.
It
is they who tolerate every conceivable deviation while condemning out of
hand
whatever is traditional. They are not individuals who have "fallen into
heresy,"
or who are, as Lefebvre would say, "tainted with modernism." (Can one have a
touch of Pregnancy?) They are much worse, for they are heretics who have
been
elected precisely because they are heretics; men who, by the laws of the
traditional Church have long since excommunicated themselves. And this
condemnation applies to virtually the entire "electoral body" responsible
for
the implementation of what can only be described as a modernist conspiracy.
It
further applies to the sycophant hierarchy which declares itself una cum
those
in power.
"And Ciaphus was, in his own mind, a benefactor of mankind" (Blake). To
speak of
a conspiracy is not to deny the sincerity of those involved. But what
heretic
has ever lacked sincerity? Nor is it to claim that every individual who lent
and
lends his support is a conscious subversive. (Thou our Lord did said that he
who
is not with Him was against Him - not to condemn error is to condone it.)
The
net result is clear. The Council and its aftermath was achieved by a
conspiracy
of individuals who Pope Saint Pius X clearly condemned, and against whom he
desired to protect the Church. He went so far as to state, in his capacity
as
Pope and hence ex cathedra, that any individual who even defended a single
modernist proposition condemned by his Encyclicals and Lamentabili was ipso
facto and latae sententiae excommunicated - that is, by that very fact and
without any need for any one to publicly so declare (Praestantia Scripturae,
Nov. 18, 1907). No father signing the Council documents and no member of the
hierarchy accepting and teaching them, can claim to fall outside this
condemnation. Everyone who considers himself "in obedience" to the new
church
implicitly accepts its modernist principles.
Consider Religious Liberty - the idea that every man is free to decide for
himself what is true and false, what is right and wrong, and that his very
human
dignity resides in just this licence. Imagine Christ upon the Cross telling
us
that he came to establish a visible Church - "One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic," and to confide to it those truths necessary for our salvation.
He
continues however to assure us that we have no obligation to listen to
Him. -
that we are free to choose for ourselves what we shall believe, and that our
real human dignity resides, not in conforming to His image, but in making
just
such choices! Incredible! And now, some two thousand years later, we find
Christ's representative whose function it is to teach us what Christ taught
us,
assuring us that, as a result of Christ's incarnation, all men, even those
who
reject the very idea of God, are saved, that Christ's Church, through her
own
fault, has lost her "unity," and that the Crucifixion is but a "witness to
man's
human dignity" - his ability to determine for himself what is true and
false.
Madness reigns supreme!
It will be argued that these false popes have said some nice things. Such
however is of no importance or interest in the present situation when we
must
decide whether or not they are truly Christ's representatives on earth. If
they
are truly "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, we must obey them. But
Catholics must understand that the Pope's infallibility is totally dependent
upon his being himself in obedience to Christ, and that when he rejects
Christ
and falsifies Christ's teaching, we must reject his authority. As Peter
said,
"one must obey God rather than man." A modernist pope is an impossibility.
Consider the new age apologies that is forced upon the "faithful". Apologies
to the Jews (who have yet to reconcile with God) and apologies to the
"victims" of the Inquisitions. Was the Catholic Church "WRONG" all these
centuries? Was the Catholic Church "fallible" all these centuries? God
forbid!
Either he is a modernist and then he isn't a pope, or he is a pope and then
he
isn't a modernist. Obviously it is the former. All this is not a matter of
picking or choosing what we shall
believe. It is a matter of being Catholic. To deny this principle is to
declare
Christ a liar! St. Catherine of Sienna (who, in reality, is not a Church
Doctor according to the Catholic Church) told us that a Pope who falsifies
his function will go to hell, and further, that those of us who obey him
will go
there with him. Let us be done with those who claim that John Paul II is
trying
to bring the "Church" back to tradition. The lie is easily exposed. All he
has
to do is reject Vatican II and restore the traditional sacraments. Short of
this
he is but a wolf in sheep's clothing pulling the wool over our eyes.
Have the "gates of hell" prevailed?. Certainly not. Catholics know that
Christ
cannot lie. Let us then examine the meaning of this promise. What it
proclaims
is that the truth will ultimately win out - though not necessarily so in the
"short run." That such is "true" is an intellectual certainty, for error can
only be defined in terms of the denial of truth. Now the Catholic Church is
true, and hence it can no more be totally destroyed than can the truth
itself.
But this Church resides, not in numbers, not in buildings, and not even of
necessity in the hierarchy. The truth functions ex opere operatio. It
resides in
the faithful (the hierarchy must be "of the faithful," before they can be
"of
the hierarchy." Or as the theologians put it, members of the "teaching
Church"
(the Magisterium) must be first of all members of the "learning Church.")
Every
baptized infant, according to the traditional rite, becomes a "member of the
body of Christ." And what is the Church if not the Body of Christ, the
presence
of Christ in this world? It follows then that, as Catherine Emerick points
out,
if there were but one person alive who was truly Catholic, the Church would
reside in him.
Visibility is a quality of the Church. Does visibility require a hierarchy?
The
matter seems open to debate, but time has not yet run its course. Consider
that God has always had a "mechanism" in place to keep the line of
succession going throughout the ages. If any event
traditional bishops are available, and if but one traditional bishop
survives,
the hierarchy would reside in him. What has to be remembered however is that
the
Church does not exist for the sake of the hierarchy, it is the hierarchy
that
exists for the sake of the Church. And history has shown that Catholics can
live
and retain the faith for centuries without any hierarchy. God knows his own
and
will not abandon them. If a bishop is necessary for the visibility of the
Church, He will certainly provide one. Ultimately, it is we who abandon God,
his
truth and his Church, and never the other way around.
One would have thought that the changes were more than enough to induce the
faithful to revolt. The great surprise, truly apocalyptic, was that the
Catholic
people did not do so. That they did not only goes to show what "sincere,
pious,
fervent and well intentioned" Catholics really valued. One is tempted to
feel
sorry for them, but as always, even in such a situation "God knows his own."
He gave them "the operation of error" in order to "sift" them "as wheat".
One
must insist upon this, for the truly innocent are far less numerous than one
is
inclined to believe. The argument that it is not possible or likely that God
would abandon his own presumes that "His own" did not deserve to be
abandoned,
when in fact they did deserve it precisely to the degree that they are in
fact
abandoned.
Why did Catholics not revolt? Well, first of all, many did, but their stand
was
undermined by poor leadership. Psychologically dependent upon the hierarchy
and
the clergy, they looked for guidance that was not provided. The Modernists,
working for decades, had prepared the ground, and even those who were not
out
and out subversives had their faith corrupted and hence weakened. At the
Council
there were perhaps 70 individuals who - towards the end - began to
understand
what was happening. No more! And among them not one was willing to take a
clear
cut stand on solid doctrinal grounds. Even Lefebvre based his opposition on
false theological premises, arguing for example that one can disobey a valid
pope. (But, then, the modernizers are not popes.) Secondly, for decades the
faithful were both inadequately trained in their
faith and discouraged from leading active spiritual lives. Educated in
secularized colleges, taught by "liberal"/communist "priests", they were by
in large
modernists without knowing it. And finally, both clergy and laity found the
modern world seductively attractive. They found the rejection and scorn of
the
modern world - a world which had repudiated the Church and like the Prodigal
son, had walked away from the bosom of the Father - increasingly
intolerable.
They could not accept the disapproval of this world in which they believed
more
strongly than in Christ. The Council declared the Church would henceforth
not
only be "open to the world," but that it would "embrace" it! Its avowed aim
and
promise was aggiornamento to bring the Church "into the twentieth century"
and
make it part of, and acceptable to that world. No longer did she proclaim
that
it was necessary for the Prodigal son to return to the bosom of the Father.
Rather, abandoning both her function and her identity, she proclaimed that
the
Father was obliged to eat the swill fit only for pigs!. Both clergy and
laity -
exceptions apart - rushed headlong into to the sea to spend their patrimony
as
if there was no tomorrow. It is this that is at the heart of the conspiracy.
It
is this that is the crux of the problem. It is this that created the smoke
swirling around St. Peter's Basilica. This spark of rebellion, present in
the
soul of every man, needed only the "winds of change" to create an inferno.
However, as has always been the case throughout the history of the Church, a
remnant persisted in retaining the fullness of the faith. The true Church is
to
be found among those who believe and continue to believe in the manner of
their
ancestors, because they believe that Christ Himself does not change, nor
does the Perpetual Sacrifice of Holy Mass. It is they who bear witness to
the truth of Christ's promise. It is
they who provide the proof that "the gates of hell have not prevailed." Not
all
are profound theologians. Not all are sinless. But they can be recognized by
their insistence on true priests, true doctrine, and the true Mass - the
Mass of
All Times.
Some would accuse Catholics holding fast to Tradition - those that insist on
retaining the
fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new
religion
of the post-Conciliar Church, of being in "schism." The accusation is a lie.
In
reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and not
one
who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from
something
in order to save the truth, long live Schism! But in reality, it is not the
traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for
changing the Catholic faith and those who partake willingly in it. But let
is be both clear and honest. The new Church
is not schismatic. It is both heretical and schismatic. In similar manner
traditional Catholics are
accused of being Protestants because they disobey the "pope". Such
accusations are
false. Traditional Catholics do not "pick and choose" what they wish to
believe;
they are adhering with all their hearts to what the Church has always taught
and
always done. Nor are they disobeying any pope. They adhere to all true
lawful Popes and they believe that a lawful true pope, being
Christ's vicar on earth and "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, is to
be
obeyed; not one who speaks and acts heretically. They know that when Peter
speaks he is infallible because it is Christ
who speaks through him. They are the out and out papists and are doing
nothing
less than refusing to disobey Peter. In such a situation they are obliged to
disobey those who falsely speak in Peter's name. To obey modernist and
heretical
"popes" is to declare that they are "one hierarchical person" with our Lord
and
hence that Christ teaches falsely - quod absit!
It is an unfortunate fact that too many Catholics who hold fast to Tradition
do not wish to be
labeled "integrists." or "sedevacantists." And why not? Why should they stop
mid
way? Such only leads to wrangling about the most absurd positions, or to
timidity of language combined with conventional and infantile
sentimentalities.
If the post-Conciliar "popes" are true popes, let us obey them. If not, let
us
obey Peter and through him Christ. People claim to be "confused" or
"troubled."
Why? The ancient catechisms are always there and modern innovations are no
different in principle than those of a prior era. Sin can change its style,
but
not its nature. "There is no greater right than that of truth," and despite
the
teaching of Vatican II, "error has no rights whatsoever."
Catholics who hold fast to Tradition often give scandal by arguing among
themselves. The new church, accepts, however, within its aegis every
conceivable deviation and change. But if Catholics who hold fast to
Tradition seem
divided it is because, in the absence of clear leadership, each individual
group
seeks to determine just what is truly Catholic for itself. What is required
is a
deeper study and commitment to what is truly Catholic on the part of all.
It is extraordinary that modern churchmen should claim to be reading "the
signs
of the times." Christ depicted the "last times" in very sombre colors.
Scripture
warns of an unparalleled outbreak of evil, called by St. Paul an Apostasy,
in
the midst of which a terrible Man of Sin and child of perdition, the special
singular enemy of Christ, or Antichrist will appear; that this will be when
revolutions prevail and the present framework of society breaks to pieces.
We
are told that they "shall defile the sanctuary of strength and shall take
away
the continual sacrifice and they shall place there the abomination unto
desolation." Does not Jeremias speak in God's Name when he says "My
Tabernacle
is laid waste, all My cords are broken: My children are gone out from Me,
and
they are not... Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought
the
Lord." And are we not told that "many false Christs will arise," that false
doctrines will be preached and that even the seeming elect will be deceived?
Finally, is not Christ specific when He tells us that at the final coming
only a
"remnant" will be left - a remnant persecuted by the Antichrist? Despite
such
warnings the modern Sanhedrin in Rome insist on supporting and fostering the
forces of revolution. They proclaim their intention to create a better
world, in
which the principles of the French Revolution are brought to fruition -
where
all men will be free, equal, and live in brotherly peace. And with this in
view
they have committed themselves to the creation of a one world religion in
which
all men - even atheists - will be gathered together as "the people of God,"
and
salvation will be as Vatican II preaches, "a communitarian process."
Fortunately
traditional Catholics can also read the signs of the times. They see in all
this
the fulfillment of the Scriptural prophecies. This is why they insist on
being a
traditional Remnant. May God give us the gift of perseverance.
"It is necessary that scandals should occur..." And this is not because of
some
arbitrary decision on the part of a personal God - quod absit - but because
of
the necessary ontological "play" that results from All Possibility, and
which
relates inevitably to the contradictions and privations without which the
world
would not be in existence. God does not desire "a given evil," but he
tolerates
'evil as such" in view of a still greater good that results from it.
If anyone tells you any different than what has been said here, then they
are either willfully ignorant or they are apostate/heretic.
Ad majorem Dei gloriam.
Padraic42
>a
>scandalous Vatican 2 "pastoral" (we are NOT bound to follow it)Council
>lacking both regularity and dignity, the Catholic religion
>has been changed.
Well, right off the bat, here's a mistake. If one rejects one Council (even
a Pastoral one) the ymust reject ALL the Councils. If one accepts one Council,
they must accept all of them as well.
As Pope Paul VI wrote, 'The smoke of Satan has entered the Church." True,
much of the Church's teachings and Vatican II have been distorted and ignored
by those who follow the 'spirit of Vatican II', but the same can be said by
those who claim that we can, and/or should, reject Vatican II. Their opposite
sides of the same coin.
>In the practical order, it has been replaced by =
>another
>religion,
Yes, by those who follow the 'spirit of Vatican II' and those who reject
Vatican II. In both cases, it's men (generic) making the Church into their
image and likeness instead of keeping it Christ's.
>a religion greatly influenced by =
>Freemasonry
>and
>Marxism and inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly =
>rejected
>under the designation of "Modernism."
And what has also been condemned by those who follow Vatican II.
>Having created a "robber" Council =
>that
>raised a host of errors such as the denial of the Church's "Unity" and
>Religious
>Liberty to the level of an infallible teaching, the post-Conciliar =
>"Church"
What errors? Every teaching in Vatican II is suppoted and backed by previous
Councils and Church teaching. Again, misery here, and those who follow the
'spirit of Vatican II' and those who reject Vatican II are the real ones
denying the Church's 'unity', feeling they can go their own way.
The 'cure' for both these cases is for them to actually read Vatican II and
not take anothers word for it.
Pax Christi, Pat
" He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake
will find it." (Matt. 10:39)
(http://members.aol.com/padraic42/Franciscan/Devotions.htm)
legatus
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
> As Pope Paul VI wrote, 'The smoke of Satan has entered the Church." True,
> much of the Church's teachings and Vatican II have been distorted and ignored
> by those who follow the 'spirit of Vatican II', but the same can be said by
> those who claim that we can, and/or should, reject Vatican II. Their opposite
> sides of the same coin.
You realize of course that if you ask a "liberal" (for lack of a better
word), you'll be told that the smoke in question is US. (not "US" as in
United States, "US" as in, you, me and the rest of our ilk)...
--
Steve
"Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency
and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope!"
Padraic42
>padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>
>> As Pope Paul VI wrote, 'The smoke of Satan has entered the Church."
>True,
>> much of the Church's teachings and Vatican II have been distorted and
>ignored
>> by those who follow the 'spirit of Vatican II', but the same can be said by
>> those who claim that we can, and/or should, reject Vatican II. Their
>opposite
>> sides of the same coin.
>
>You realize of course that if you ask a "liberal" (for lack of a better
>word), you'll be told that the smoke in question is US. (not "US" as in
>United States, "US" as in, you, me and the rest of our ilk)...
>
that the smoke is US as in those of us who adhere to the teachings of Vatican
II.
One wants a Church that never was, a democratic Church, where the people
decide by polls what the truth is. The other side is essentially the same,
only from a different stance.
Both figure they can reject Church teaching if it doesn't suit them.
CHARLES
Revelator wrote in message <75pch5$iu6$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
Either he is a modernist and then he isn't a pope, or he is a pope and then
he
isn't a modernist. Obviously it is the former.
If the post-Conciliar "popes" are true popes, let us obey them. If not, let
us
obey Peter and through him Christ
If anyone tells you any different than what has been said here, then they
are either willfully ignorant or they are apostate/heretic.
....Do you believe that the Pope has received the keys to the kingdom of heaven which were given originally to St. Peter and then handed downsuccessively to each Pope, and that these keys give the Pope the authority to loose and bind on heaven and earth? You claim that the Pope has somehow lost his authority, but from where do you derive your authority to judge the teachings of the present Pope and all of his hierarchy? I thought that J.C. was to be with the Church until the end of time. Now you say that the whole hierarchy of the RCC and the Pope are wrong. So,is it true that according to you, the Holy Spirit then no longer protects the Church from error, but you are personally given that protection from error? Does this not bring us to the Protestant notion that each individual is to sift and decide for himself or herself what is the interpretation of this or that teaching?One other question: Do you think that the teachings of the RCC have never undergone any change at all? How then do you explain the the idea that it is a virtue for slaves to be obedient to their masters with fear and trembling and in sincerity of heart (Eph 6, vs 5)? Has this teaching been changed or not? For example, we read in Exodus 21:20-21"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Did the RC bishop of Chiapas, Bartolome de las Casas, approach the Spanish king Charles I, with a proposal that each Spanish settler should be permitted to bring over a certain number of black African slaves, because he was concerned abvout the harsh treatment given to the American Indian slaves? (See Encyclopedia Britannica, 1980, Macropedia, Slavery). Did RC bishops hold slaves in the New World? If the RCC can change its teaching on the idea that it is a virtue for slaves to be subject to their masters, then can it change its teaching on other things as well? For another example, do i understnad you to say that the RCC was right in upholding the Inquisition?...
Consider the new age apologies that is forced upon the "faithful". Apologies
to the Jews (who have yet to reconcile with God) and apologies to the
"victims" of the Inquisitions. Was the Catholic Church "WRONG" all these
centuries? Was the Catholic Church "fallible" all these centuries? God
forbid!
...
So you do not think that the idea that the death penalty is warranted for embracing heresy could be changed? Not too many people would agree with that.On the other hand, i am unable to make any sense at all concerning the current teaching on annulments. From the point of view of the children, i don't see where it makes any difference to them whether their parents got a divorce or an annulment. The family unit is broken up in any case. The children have to suffer, even if the RCC sanctions the annulment.
Kevin Beach
[Snipped on humanitarian grounds]
Well, well!
Kevin
Paul C
they say the intelligence of an e mail is inversely proportional to its
length
Haaaaaaaa haaaa
A Happy and Holy Christmas to you all
BrianD5772
In article <75pch5$iu6$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>, "Revelator" <mis...@gte.net>
writes:
>
>Whether we believe it or not, and whether
>it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after =
>a
>scandalous Vatican 2 "pastoral" (we are NOT bound to follow it)Council
>lacking both regularity and dignity, the Catholic religion
>has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by =
>another
>religion, an evolving religion, a religion greatly influenced by =
>Freemasonry
>and
>Marxism and inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly =
>rejected
>under the designation of "Modernism." Having created a "robber" Council =
>that
>raised a host of errors such as the denial of the Church's "Unity" and
>Religious
>Liberty to the level of an infallible teaching, the post-Conciliar =
>"Church"
>proceeded to abolish the Oath against Modernism and the Holy Office. =
>What
>other
>purpose could such measures have than to deprive the Traditional Church =
>-
>the
>Church of All Times - of all her defences? And what followed? The =
>turning of
>altars into tables, the changing of priests into "presidents," the
>invalidating
>of all the sacraments not acceptable to Protestants, the mistranslating =
>of
>the
>Scriptures, and above all, the downgrading of Tabernacles and the
>destruction of
>the Mass - "humanist" and demagogic changes of the most serious nature.
>Cardinal
>Suenens was correct when he described this as "the French Revolution in =
>the
>Catholic Church."
>Consider the principle that "by their fruits you shall know them." Now =
>what
>are
>the fruits of the new religion? Priests by the thousands have abandoned
>their
>calling - of those remaining over 25% requested and were refused =
>permission
>to
>marry. Monks and nuns laicized by the thousands. The seminaries are
>virtually
>deserted. The median age for priests in the United States being the late
>fifties, with an anticipated drop to 40% of the present level by the end =
>of
>the
>decade. Far more tragic: despite the wide range of "liturgies" offered -
>conservative to radical chic - Catholics by the millions have turned =
>away
>from
>the Church and for all practical purposes the youth is no longer =
>interested
>in
>what she has to offer. Only 15% of the erstwhile faithful still attend
>Sunday
>Mass and among these communions are up while confessions are down,
>suggesting
>that even sin is dwindling away. Over 80% of married Catholics use birth
>control
>and do so in the belief that such violates no divine principle, divorce
>statistics show no difference between Catholics and others; and in the
>practical
>realm complete chaos exists with regard to sexual behavior.
>Along with all this is the corruption, nay destruction of doctrine and
>theology.
>The acceptance of evolution as a fact in every realm - be it biology,
>theology,
>sociology - even the Tielhardian thesis that God Himself evolves! The
>abrogation
>of Canons 1399 and 2318, the refusal of the new church to condemn out =
>and
>out
>heretics and the blatant indulgence extended to those who like Hans Kung =
>-
>their
>name is legion - would poison the thinking of the faithful are =
>symptomatic
>of
>the wide-spread modernist malignancy. The self proclaimed =
>"desacralization"
>and
>"demytholization" of the Church combined with the misrepresentation of
>everything traditional has resulted in an all-pervasive familiarity and
>vulgarity. Recent attempts to cover this over by dressing the presidents
>(clergy) and nuns in traditional garb has in no way changed the =
>situation.
>Let those who have ears hear. The writing was on the wall from the very
>opening
>of the false Council. But who of us wished to listen. It's leitmotiv was
>Aggiornamento ("updating to the times"; modernization), a concept =
>inimical
>to any religion based on eternal verities and
>Revelation. Roncalli, alias John XXIII (who took the name of an =
>anti-pope
>against the Church's teachings that NO pope is to take the name of any
>former pope), then declared his intention "to
>safeguard the sacred deposit of the faith more effectively." It does not
>take
>much imagination to understand what he meant - and he did not hesitate =
>to
>declare that "...the substance of the ancient doctrine contained in the
>deposit
>of the faith is one thing, the manner in which it is expressed in
>another..."
>This claim is false and in fact satanic, for it opened the door to all =
>the
>betrayals and falsifications that followed. The traditional formulations
>were
>not superficial luxuries, they were guarantees of the truth and =
>efficacy;
>they
>more then adequately expressed what they wished to say - their adequacy =
>was
>in
>fact their raison d'etre. Is not the truth inseparable from its =
>expression?
>Was
>it not the strength of the Church that the old expressions were always
>valid?
>They only displeased those who wished to make modernism, scientism, =
>false
>ecumenism, evolutionism
>and socialism part of the "deposit of the faith."
>One must take a phenomena for what it is. If one sees a tiger in the =
>streets
>of
>New York one does not require a news broadcast to know that what one =
>sees is
>a
>reality. One can deny its existence only at the risk of one's life.
>Despite the obvious, there are those who, desiring to have the "best of =
>both
>worlds," would exculpate the post-Conciliar Church; and who seek to =
>explain
>why
>is it that the "smoke of Satan" (words of Paul 6 who wrote his name with =
>3
>sixes) has all but obscured "the dome of St. Peter's"?
>Some claim that it is because the Council and the subsequent innovations
>were
>"badly interpreted." But, by whom? Others, loudly proclaiming their =
>loyalty
>to
>those usurping the Chair of Peter, claim it is the fault of the bishops =
>and
>cardinals around him. But who appointed them? Since when has the =
>principle
>of
>respondeat superior been abandoned? (Even hell has a hierarchical
>structure.)
>Despite the fact that such claims are often motivated by the desire "to
>cover
>Noah's drunkenness," they remain a combination of improbabilities and
>hypocrisy.
>
>Whether we like it or not, this blame must fall primarily upon the
>post-conciliar "popes." Even though none of us are without an element of
>culpability, it is they who must bear the burden. It is they who =
>approved
>the
>Council and the Reforms, and without their approval neither the Council =
>nor
>the
>Reforms would have any meaning or authority. It is they who have =
>misapplied
>the
>principles of obedience in order to bring the erstwhile faithful into =
>line.
>It
>is they who tolerate every conceivable deviation while condemning out of
>hand
>whatever is traditional. They are not individuals who have "fallen into
>heresy,"
>or who are, as Lefebvre would say, "tainted with modernism." (Can one =
>have a
>touch of Pregnancy?) They are much worse, for they are heretics who have
>been
>elected precisely because they are heretics; men who, by the laws of the
>traditional Church have long since excommunicated themselves. And this
>condemnation applies to virtually the entire "electoral body" =
>responsible
>for
>the implementation of what can only be described as a modernist =
>conspiracy.
>It
>further applies to the sycophant hierarchy which declares itself una cum
>those
>in power.
>"And Ciaphus was, in his own mind, a benefactor of mankind" (Blake). To
>speak of
>a conspiracy is not to deny the sincerity of those involved. But what
>heretic
>has ever lacked sincerity? Nor is it to claim that every individual who =
>lent
>and
>lends his support is a conscious subversive. (Thou our Lord did said =
>that he
>who
>is not with Him was against Him - not to condemn error is to condone =
>it.)
>The
>net result is clear. The Council and its aftermath was achieved by a
>conspiracy
>of individuals who Pope Saint Pius X clearly condemned, and against whom =
>he
>desired to protect the Church. He went so far as to state, in his =
>capacity
>as
>Pope and hence ex cathedra, that any individual who even defended a =
>single
>modernist proposition condemned by his Encyclicals and Lamentabili was =
>ipso
>facto and latae sententiae excommunicated - that is, by that very fact =
>and
>without any need for any one to publicly so declare (Praestantia =
>Scripturae,
>Nov. 18, 1907). No father signing the Council documents and no member of =
>the
>
>hierarchy accepting and teaching them, can claim to fall outside this
>condemnation. Everyone who considers himself "in obedience" to the new
>church
>implicitly accepts its modernist principles.
>
>Consider Religious Liberty - the idea that every man is free to decide =
>for
>himself what is true and false, what is right and wrong, and that his =
>very
>human
>dignity resides in just this licence. Imagine Christ upon the Cross =
>telling
>us
>that he came to establish a visible Church - "One, Holy, Catholic, and
>Apostolic," and to confide to it those truths necessary for our =
>salvation.
>He
>continues however to assure us that we have no obligation to listen to
>Him. -
>that we are free to choose for ourselves what we shall believe, and that =
>our
>real human dignity resides, not in conforming to His image, but in =
>making
>just
>such choices! Incredible! And now, some two thousand years later, we =
>find
>Christ's representative whose function it is to teach us what Christ =
>taught
>us,
>assuring us that, as a result of Christ's incarnation, all men, even =
>those
>who
>reject the very idea of God, are saved, that Christ's Church, through =
>her
>own
>fault, has lost her "unity," and that the Crucifixion is but a "witness =
>to
>man's
>human dignity" - his ability to determine for himself what is true and
>false.
>Madness reigns supreme!
>It will be argued that these false popes have said some nice things. =
>Such
>however is of no importance or interest in the present situation when we
>must
>decide whether or not they are truly Christ's representatives on earth. =
>If
>they
>are truly "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, we must obey them. =
>But
>Catholics must understand that the Pope's infallibility is totally =
>dependent
>upon his being himself in obedience to Christ, and that when he rejects
>Christ
>and falsifies Christ's teaching, we must reject his authority. As Peter
>said,
>"one must obey God rather than man." A modernist pope is an =
>impossibility.
>
>Consider the new age apologies that is forced upon the "faithful". =
>Apologies
>to the Jews (who have yet to reconcile with God) and apologies to the
>"victims" of the Inquisitions. Was the Catholic Church "WRONG" all these
>centuries? Was the Catholic Church "fallible" all these centuries? God
>forbid!
>
>Either he is a modernist and then he isn't a pope, or he is a pope and =
>then
>he
>isn't a modernist. Obviously it is the former. All this is not a matter =
>of
>picking or choosing what we shall
>believe. It is a matter of being Catholic. To deny this principle is to
>declare
>Christ a liar! St. Catherine of Sienna (who, in reality, is not a Church
>Doctor according to the Catholic Church) told us that a Pope who =
>falsifies
>his function will go to hell, and further, that those of us who obey him
>will go
>there with him. Let us be done with those who claim that John Paul II is
>trying
>to bring the "Church" back to tradition. The lie is easily exposed. All =
>he
>has
>to do is reject Vatican II and restore the traditional sacraments. Short =
>of
>this
>he is but a wolf in sheep's clothing pulling the wool over our eyes.
>Have the "gates of hell" prevailed?. Certainly not. Catholics know that
>Christ
>cannot lie. Let us then examine the meaning of this promise. What it
>proclaims
>is that the truth will ultimately win out - though not necessarily so in =
>the
>"short run." That such is "true" is an intellectual certainty, for error =
>can
>only be defined in terms of the denial of truth. Now the Catholic Church =
>is
>true, and hence it can no more be totally destroyed than can the truth
>itself.
>But this Church resides, not in numbers, not in buildings, and not even =
>of
>necessity in the hierarchy. The truth functions ex opere operatio. It
>resides in
>the faithful (the hierarchy must be "of the faithful," before they can =
>be
>"of
>the hierarchy." Or as the theologians put it, members of the "teaching
>Church"
>(the Magisterium) must be first of all members of the "learning =
>Church.")
>Every
>baptized infant, according to the traditional rite, becomes a "member of =
>the
>body of Christ." And what is the Church if not the Body of Christ, the
>presence
>of Christ in this world? It follows then that, as Catherine Emerick =
>points
>out,
>if there were but one person alive who was truly Catholic, the Church =
>would
>reside in him.
>Visibility is a quality of the Church. Does visibility require a =
>hierarchy?
>The
>matter seems open to debate, but time has not yet run its course. =
>Consider
>that God has always had a "mechanism" in place to keep the line of
>succession going throughout the ages. If any event
>traditional bishops are available, and if but one traditional bishop
>survives,
>the hierarchy would reside in him. What has to be remembered however is =
>that
>the
>Church does not exist for the sake of the hierarchy, it is the hierarchy
>that
>exists for the sake of the Church. And history has shown that Catholics =
>can
>live
>and retain the faith for centuries without any hierarchy. God knows his =
>own
>and
>will not abandon them. If a bishop is necessary for the visibility of =
>the
>Church, He will certainly provide one. Ultimately, it is we who abandon =
>God,
>his
>truth and his Church, and never the other way around.
>One would have thought that the changes were more than enough to induce =
>the
>faithful to revolt. The great surprise, truly apocalyptic, was that the
>Catholic
>people did not do so. That they did not only goes to show what "sincere,
>pious,
>fervent and well intentioned" Catholics really valued. One is tempted to
>feel
>sorry for them, but as always, even in such a situation "God knows his =
>own."
>He gave them "the operation of error" in order to "sift" them "as =
>wheat".
>One
>must insist upon this, for the truly innocent are far less numerous than =
>one
>is
>inclined to believe. The argument that it is not possible or likely that =
>God
>would abandon his own presumes that "His own" did not deserve to be
>abandoned,
>when in fact they did deserve it precisely to the degree that they are =
>in
>fact
>abandoned.
>Why did Catholics not revolt? Well, first of all, many did, but their =
>stand
>was
>undermined by poor leadership. Psychologically dependent upon the =
>hierarchy
>and
>the clergy, they looked for guidance that was not provided. The =
>Modernists,
>working for decades, had prepared the ground, and even those who were =
>not
>out
>and out subversives had their faith corrupted and hence weakened. At the
>Council
>there were perhaps 70 individuals who - towards the end - began to
>understand
>what was happening. No more! And among them not one was willing to take =
>a
>clear
>cut stand on solid doctrinal grounds. Even Lefebvre based his opposition =
>on
>false theological premises, arguing for example that one can disobey a =
>valid
>pope. (But, then, the modernizers are not popes.) Secondly, for decades =
>the
>faithful were both inadequately trained in their
>faith and discouraged from leading active spiritual lives. Educated in
>secularized colleges, taught by "liberal"/communist "priests", they were =
>by
>in large
>modernists without knowing it. And finally, both clergy and laity found =
>the
>modern world seductively attractive. They found the rejection and scorn =
>of
>the
>modern world - a world which had repudiated the Church and like the =
>Prodigal
>son, had walked away from the bosom of the Father - increasingly
>intolerable.
>They could not accept the disapproval of this world in which they =
>believed
>more
>strongly than in Christ. The Council declared the Church would =
>henceforth
>not
>only be "open to the world," but that it would "embrace" it! Its avowed =
>aim
>and
>promise was aggiornamento to bring the Church "into the twentieth =
>century"
>and
>make it part of, and acceptable to that world. No longer did she =
>proclaim
>that
>it was necessary for the Prodigal son to return to the bosom of the =
>Father.
>Rather, abandoning both her function and her identity, she proclaimed =
>that
>the
>Father was obliged to eat the swill fit only for pigs!. Both clergy and
>laity -
>exceptions apart - rushed headlong into to the sea to spend their =
>patrimony
>as
>if there was no tomorrow. It is this that is at the heart of the =
>conspiracy.
>It
>is this that is the crux of the problem. It is this that created the =
>smoke
>swirling around St. Peter's Basilica. This spark of rebellion, present =
>in
>the
>soul of every man, needed only the "winds of change" to create an =
>inferno.
>However, as has always been the case throughout the history of the =
>Church, a
>remnant persisted in retaining the fullness of the faith. The true =
>Church is
>to
>be found among those who believe and continue to believe in the manner =
>of
>their
>ancestors, because they believe that Christ Himself does not change, nor
>does the Perpetual Sacrifice of Holy Mass. It is they who bear witness =
>to
>the truth of Christ's promise. It is
>they who provide the proof that "the gates of hell have not prevailed." =
>Not
>all
>are profound theologians. Not all are sinless. But they can be =
>recognized by
>their insistence on true priests, true doctrine, and the true Mass - the
>Mass of
>All Times.
>Some would accuse Catholics holding fast to Tradition - those that =
>insist on
>retaining the
>fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new
>religion
>of the post-Conciliar Church, of being in "schism." The accusation is a =
>lie.
>In
>reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and =
>not
>one
>who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from
>something
>in order to save the truth, long live Schism! But in reality, it is not =
>the
>traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for
>changing the Catholic faith and those who partake willingly in it. But =
>let
>is be both clear and honest. The new Church
>is not schismatic. It is both heretical and schismatic. In similar =
>manner
>traditional Catholics are
>accused of being Protestants because they disobey the "pope". Such
>accusations are
>false. Traditional Catholics do not "pick and choose" what they wish to
>believe;
>they are adhering with all their hearts to what the Church has always =
>taught
>and
>always done. Nor are they disobeying any pope. They adhere to all true
>lawful Popes and they believe that a lawful true pope, being
>Christ's vicar on earth and "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, is =
>to
>be
>obeyed; not one who speaks and acts heretically. They know that when =
>Peter
>speaks he is infallible because it is Christ
>who speaks through him. They are the out and out papists and are doing
>nothing
>less than refusing to disobey Peter. In such a situation they are =
>obliged to
>disobey those who falsely speak in Peter's name. To obey modernist and
>heretical
>"popes" is to declare that they are "one hierarchical person" with our =
>Lord
>and
>hence that Christ teaches falsely - quod absit!
>It is an unfortunate fact that too many Catholics who hold fast to =
>Tradition
>do not wish to be
>labeled "integrists." or "sedevacantists." And why not? Why should they =
>stop
>mid
>way? Such only leads to wrangling about the most absurd positions, or to
>timidity of language combined with conventional and infantile
>sentimentalities.
>If the post-Conciliar "popes" are true popes, let us obey them. If not, =
>let
>us
>obey Peter and through him Christ. People claim to be "confused" or
>"troubled."
>Why? The ancient catechisms are always there and modern innovations are =
>no
>different in principle than those of a prior era. Sin can change its =
>style,
>but
>not its nature. "There is no greater right than that of truth," and =
>despite
>the
>teaching of Vatican II, "error has no rights whatsoever."
>Catholics who hold fast to Tradition often give scandal by arguing among
>themselves. The new church, accepts, however, within its aegis every
>conceivable deviation and change. But if Catholics who hold fast to
>Tradition seem
>divided it is because, in the absence of clear leadership, each =
>individual
>group
>seeks to determine just what is truly Catholic for itself. What is =
>required
>is a
>deeper study and commitment to what is truly Catholic on the part of =
>all.
>
>It is extraordinary that modern churchmen should claim to be reading =
>"the
>signs
>of the times." Christ depicted the "last times" in very sombre colors.
>Scripture
>warns of an unparalleled outbreak of evil, called by St. Paul an =
>Apostasy,
>in
>the midst of which a terrible Man of Sin and child of perdition, the =
>special
>singular enemy of Christ, or Antichrist will appear; that this will be =
>when
>revolutions prevail and the present framework of society breaks to =
>pieces.
>We
>are told that they "shall defile the sanctuary of strength and shall =
>take
>away
>the continual sacrifice and they shall place there the abomination unto
>desolation." Does not Jeremias speak in God's Name when he says "My
>Tabernacle
>is laid waste, all My cords are broken: My children are gone out from =
>Me,
>and
>they are not... Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not =
>sought
>the
>Lord." And are we not told that "many false Christs will arise," that =
>false
>doctrines will be preached and that even the seeming elect will be =
>deceived?
>Finally, is not Christ specific when He tells us that at the final =
>coming
>only a
>"remnant" will be left - a remnant persecuted by the Antichrist? Despite
>such
>warnings the modern Sanhedrin in Rome insist on supporting and fostering =
>the
>forces of revolution. They proclaim their intention to create a better
>world, in
>which the principles of the French Revolution are brought to fruition -
>where
>all men will be free, equal, and live in brotherly peace. And with this =
>in
>view
>they have committed themselves to the creation of a one world religion =
>in
>which
>all men - even atheists - will be gathered together as "the people of =
>God,"
>and
>salvation will be as Vatican II preaches, "a communitarian process."
>Fortunately
>traditional Catholics can also read the signs of the times. They see in =
>all
>this
>the fulfillment of the Scriptural prophecies. This is why they insist on
>being a
>traditional Remnant. May God give us the gift of perseverance.
>"It is necessary that scandals should occur..." And this is not because =
>of
>some
>arbitrary decision on the part of a personal God - quod absit - but =
>because
>of
>the necessary ontological "play" that results from All Possibility, and
>which
>relates inevitably to the contradictions and privations without which =
>the
>world
>would not be in existence. God does not desire "a given evil," but he
>tolerates
>'evil as such" in view of a still greater good that results from it.
>
>If anyone tells you any different than what has been said here, then =
>they
>are either willfully ignorant or they are apostate/heretic.
>
>Ad majorem Dei gloriam.
>
>
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0047_01BE2E9D.E004B2A0
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
>
><HEAD>
>
><META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
>http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
><META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
></HEAD>
>
><DIV>Whether we believe it or not, and whether
>it seems possible to =us or=20not, what is abundantly clear is, that after a
>scandalous Vatican 2=20"pastoral" (we are NOT bound to follow
>it)Council
>lacking =both=20regularity and dignity, the Catholic religion
>has been changed. In =the=20practical order, it has been replaced by another
>religion, an =evolving=20religion, a religion greatly influenced by
>Freemasonry
>and
>Marxism =and=20inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly
>=rejected
>under the=20designation of "Modernism." Having created a
>="robber"=20Council that
>raised a host of errors such as the denial of the
>=Church's=20"Unity" and
>Religious
>Liberty to the level of an =infallible=20teaching, the post-Conciliar
>"Church"
>proceeded to abolish =the Oath=20against Modernism and the Holy Office. What
>other
Or it could be that for the first time people don't die for disagreeing with
the church