Sedevacante & The One True Catholic Church

http://www.novusordowatch.org/sede_50.htm

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

A billion misguided souls do not a Catholic Church make....

Thanks, Joansknight, for starting this thread. As you know, I disagree with you about the Catholic Church, but I think it is good that there is a thread which can concentrate on this issue rather than it popping up from time to time in other threads.

I do rather get the impression that Most Holy Family Monastery is just two guys(1) with a website(2), and Novus Ordo Watch maybe just one person: neither website is very forthcoming in the About Us section.

The criticism of the New Mass seems bizarre in its conservatism. If tweaking a handful of minor details in the liturgy constitutes an abandonment of the Church's tradition, then the Council of Trent should be anathematized a hundred times over, and Gregory the Great declared a heretic.

A billion misguided souls do not a Catholic Church make....

But a couple of dozen misguided souls certainly do not.

--------------------------------------------
(1) Can you have a bona fide Benedictine monastery consisting of only two lay brothers(3)?

A third and most vile class of monks is that of Sarabaites, who have been tried by no rule under the hand of a master, as gold is tried in the fire (cf Prov 27:21); but...they are known to belie God by their tonsure. Living in two's and three's, or even singly, without a shepherd, enclosed, not in the Lord's sheepfold, but in their own. (Rule of St Benedict)

(2) The News section of their website covers such pressing Catholic ecclesiastical issues as the recent arrests near Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria and cars being attacked by alligators. WTF? The email transcripts are full of loopy stuff about how Obama's birth certificate is tid up with global apostasy(4).

(3) Not only does the "Catholic Church" lack a Pope: it looks as though it lacks any functional priesthood at all.

(4) The whole thing is tied in with rabid American conspiracy theories. Thanks for the link, Joansknight. Now I'm quite confident that the whole thing is a heap of batshit that I don't have to take seriously. I mean, really: next thing you know, someone in Oklahoma is going to have a vision of the Virgin Mary and publish the Seventeenth Secret of Fatima. I'm going back to Dan Brown: at least his drivel is fun to read.

The Most Holy Dimond Family website castigates Benedict XVI as a heretic for saying that the schismatic Oriental Orthodox Churches have saints and martyrs. Have they not heard of St Athanasius, or St Antony of Egypt? I'm not sure which is more staggering: the ignorance or the bigotry.

>4 MyopicBookworm: Thanks, MyopicBookworm. I hadn't really paid much attention to the Mass claims, but I seem to remember that at one point there were at least four authentic and official liturgical rites within the Roman Church (Gallic, Celtic, Eastern and Roman?), which at some point were reduced to one, so clearly it is an authentic part of Church teaching to have changes in the liturgy. I also recall that one of the "new" Eucharistic Prayers, no 2, is based on a very early Eucharistic Prayer (as early as the second century or thereabouts?), from a time when there were many such prayers.

#4: "(1) Can you have a bona fide Benedictine monastery consisting of only two lay brothers (3)?"
When Henry VIII started his Reformation it was the hundreds of small houses, often only 2 or 3 members, that were thought to be most dissolute and first to be targetted. Only after the Pilgrimage of Grace were the large monasteries closed down. Sorry to stray from the main issue.

Thanks, Joansknight for locating this discussion where it ought to be. We would like to hear your thoughts and reasonings here more than quotations. Or a quotation and then some commentary from you. We do want to engage in conversation, and without throwing invectives and name-calling.

>8 2wonderY:: Book Worm is the one who called me a troll....

Why do you people have a problem with me quoting holy men of the Church and Church doctrine? That is why have have them to guide us. My comments or opinions do not matter It is what the Church teaches that matters. You people accept what you like and disapprove of what you don't like and thanks to Vatican II you have what you like and if you don't like what they teach or what the Church teaches you disregard that stuff too. Look aBook Worm: She thinks St. Gregory the Great is a heretic (he had nothing to do with the Council of Trent by the way), she wants the Council of Trent anathematized, and she dislikes popes who are saints. And you people think I am misguided. Book Worm seems quite intelligent, but she doesn't have a very good hold on what Catholicism really is.

As for MHFM and Novus Ordo Watch, Book Worm just reads what she wants to read and accepts only what she wants to.

I love Dan Brown's books by the way!

I almost forgot my quote:

Has the Lord completely abandoned His Church? Has the hour then come and is the fall beginning in this way so that now the man of sin is clearly revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped?

- St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-ca. 379) (in 373)

>5 MyopicBookworm:: I hate to correct you again Book Worm, but, St Athanasius and St Antony of Egypt lived prior to 1054 AD when the Orthodox church broke away from Rome. They are referring to those after the break with Rome. Please know your facts before you comment or judge.

They are referring to those after the break with Rome

Where do they say that?

the Orthodox church broke away from Rome

I think actually the papal legate excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople first, so the breaking was on the Roman side.

thinks St. Gregory the Great is a heretic ... wants the Council of Trent anathematized

You don't understand my comment at all, do you? The sedevac. website was minutely criticizing small alterations in the Mass, such as making certain collects optional, and implying that these changes were somehow illegitimate. But Gregory the Great and the Council of Trent (separately, on different occasions: I know, I'm not stupid) made major changes to the Roman liturgy. So if the post-1958 Popes are to be condemned for such changes, how much more should one condemn those who made more radical changes?

dislikes popes who are saints

Actually that was just a dig at Pius X.

I called you a troll because you were spamming threads with contentious and off-topic posts.

The Council of Trent did NOT make changes to the liturgy. They merely defined it more clearly in light of the Protestant Reformation....the Council of Trent was a result of the Reformation.

The Novus Ordo mass is merely a glorified Protestant service. Several Protestant ministers guided Paul VI in creating such a Protestant service. Man is the center of the Novus Ordo mass not Christ.ally think Man should be the center of Christ sacrifice?

I never said you were stupid I sure don't know everything.

WHY ONE CANNOT, IN GOOD FAITH, ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO

1) Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of the Catholic Faith (which the traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore since we pray as we believe, (lex orandi, lex credendi) it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant Fashion and still believe as Catholics!

2) Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation... a total change... a new creation." (Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the main conspirator in deconstructing the True Mass as the co-author of the New Order rite) As all can plainly see after 40 years of trial and tribulation is "the abomination of desolation.,,standing in the holy place" - Our Lord's words in Matthew 24: 14 warning us of this time that "he that readeth, let him understand."
3) Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths ... can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever." *
* The quote is from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI on September 25, 1969 in the The Ottaviani Intervention
4) Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery." *
* The quote is from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI on September 25, 1969 in the The Ottaviani Intervention
5) Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all." *
* The quote is from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI on September 25, 1969 in the The Ottaviani Intervention
6) Because "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of Faith." *
* The quote is from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI on September 25, 1969 in the The Ottaviani Intervention
7) Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of Our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass attendance in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76). *
* As we know the statistics have only grown worse, which is inevitable from the barren tree of Vatican II. Not that the Vatican was not warned of this catastrophe; see The Ottaviani Intervention
8) Because "amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the New Mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience..." *
* The quote is from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI on September 25, 1969 in the The Ottaviani Intervention
9) Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 -- almost 50%! (Holy See Statistics)
As we know the statistics have only grown worse, which is inevitable from the barren tree of Vatican II. Not that the Vatican was not warned of this catastrophe; see The Ottaviani Intervention
10) Because "The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition ... do not seem to us sufficient." *
* The quote is from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI on September 25, 1969 in the The Ottaviani Intervention
11) Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord -- the Traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably.
As we know from statistics released and the admissions of so many priests and laity belief in the Real Presence grows less and less with every new innovation employed. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
12) Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).
As we know from statistics released and the admissions of so many priests and laity belief in the Real Presence grows less and less with every new innovation employed. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
13) Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).
As we know from statistics released and the admissions of so many priests and laity belief in an Alter Christus have greatly waned for today they are considered mere presiders while the people consider themselves on an equal with the priest. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
14) Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.
As we know from statistics released and the admissions of so many priests and laity belief in an alter Christus have greatly waned for today they are considered mere presiders while the people consider themselves on an equal with the priest. Truly heresy. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
15) Because the insertion of the Lutheran "Prayer of the Faithful" in the New Mass follows and puts forth the Protestant error that all the people are priests.
As we know what Paul VI issued was more than even the apostate Augustinian monk Martin Luther could have hoped for. Is there any question as to the intent? Truly heresy that was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
16) Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.
As we know what Paul VI issued was more than even the apostate Augustinian monk Martin Luther could have hoped for. Is there any question as to the intent? Truly heresy that was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
17) Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest -- which is against Catholic theology!
As we know what Paul VI issued was more than even the apostate Augustinian monk Martin Luther could have hoped for. Is there any question as to the intent? Truly heresy that was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
18) Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
Several of these principals have openly admitted their intent and Thurian today is praised by the Vatican for his ecumenical advances. Ugh! Is there any question as to the agenda? Truly heresy that was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
19) Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory -- since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass -- so also the inventors of the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.
We know that what Paul VI issued was more than even the apostate Augustinian monk Martin Luther could have hoped for. Therefore, is there any question as to the intent? It is truly heresy that was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
20) Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the True Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant Minister Thurian (co-consulter for the 'New Mass' project) said that a fruit of the New mass "will perhaps be that the non-Catholic communities will be ale to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix 4/30/69)
As you will see in Michael Davies' article in Traditional Thoughts, Thurian, who converted and became a priest still continued his Protestant Taizé community, praised today by John Paul II and the rest of the VaticantwoArians. After all, there really is no difference! Not! The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
21) Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant Thesis)
So many have been so dumbed down over the past 35 years that they aren't aware how the sacrificial nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been eliminated as much as possible by the VaticantwoArians. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
22) Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not the indisputable, infallible Catholic Doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice for the remission of sins.
So many have been so dumbed down over the past 35 years that they aren't aware how the sacrificial nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been eliminated as much as possible by the VaticantwoArians. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
23) Because the changes such as: table instead of altar; facing people instead of tabernacle; Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g., Mass is only a meal; priest only a president of the assembly; Eucharist is NOT the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but merely a piece of bread, etc.)
So many have been so dumbed down that they aren't aware how the sacrificial nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been eliminated as much as possible by the VaticantwoArians. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
24) Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have abandoned the false (sic) perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix 12/10/69)
So many Catholics don't realize they're out-Protestantizing the Protestants. They've been so dumbed down that they aren't aware how the sacrificial nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been eliminated as much as possible by the VaticantwoArians. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
25) Because we are faced with the dilemma: either we become Protestantized by worshipping with the New Mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass, the "Mass of All Time."
So many Catholics don't realize they have become Protestants and worship in a Protestant service at the Novus Ordo. They've been so dumbed down that they aren't aware how the sacrificial nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been eliminated as much as possible by the VaticantwoArians. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
26) Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." (Par. 7 Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)
So many Catholics don't realize this. They hear the Pope saying "Eucharistic Celebration" and they rejoice. They should lament that the Sacrifice has been lost. They've been so dumbed down that they aren't aware how the sacrificial nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been eliminated as much as possible by the VaticantwoArians. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
27) Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is "double-tongued" and offensive to God Who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: "Cursed be ... the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many." (Sirach 28:13)
So many Catholics don't realize this. If we seek to please man, we are not pleasing God. So many Catholics have been so dumbed down that they aren't aware how the Holy Sacrifice has been so thoroughly gutted by the VaticantwoArians. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
28) Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries, have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.
So many Catholics don't realize this. The more one is brainwashed in the Protestant way, the less one protests allowing the enemy to walk right in. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
29) Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy half resembles the Truth!
Ah yes, is there any doubt that the Father of Half-truths is behind this? But Catholics have been so lobotomized that they'll buy anything. Satan was counting on that! The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe. See The Ottaviani Intervention
30) Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship service cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.
There it is in living proof. How can it now serve those very religions which rejected her? As Christ and His only one True Church teach: They can't unless they abandon their apostate faiths and return to the bosom of the Church from Peter through Pius XII.
31) Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer's heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods used to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.
Yet Catholics have been so dumbed down that they remain in denial, not realizing that what exists today in the New 'Mess' of the New Order has gone further in profanity than even Cranmer or Luther could have hoped for. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969.. See The Ottaviani Intervention
32) Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English Martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate in a Mass such as the New Mass!
Yet leaders of the newChurch apologize to the heretics for this heroic action by the English Martyrs, and bow to the Anglican head by kissing his ring. Just as they refused to particate in the New Mass in the 1500's so also true Catholics must refuse to participate in the New 'Mess' of this age for the Novus Ordo is even more profane than Henry VIII's or Cranmer's 'mass'. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969.. See The Ottaviani Intervention
33) Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julien Green, asks: "Why did we convert?"
An excellent question that the New Order can't answer, but the Church of Peter through Pius XII can and does for it is dogma: Because outside the Church there is no salvation. If all those who have abandoned the Truths and Traditions of the True Church think they are still in the True Church take a look at your Protestant neighbors and ask yourself if you have not become the same? Universalism has overtaken the modern church. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969.. See The Ottaviani Intervention
34) Because statistics show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following the use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000! And the number of people leaving the Church far exceeds those coming in.
Ah, yes, the fruits of Vatican II. The statistics the Priests of Campos were referring to were twenty years ago. Look at the terrible erosion since. The numbers are staggering, not just in the closure of churches, beautiful edifying ones at that, but the empty portals of Heaven for so many have assumed they'd get there without the True Faith and Sacraments. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969.. See The Ottaviani Intervention
35) Because the Traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it ..." (Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum)
So why, then, in that same constitution did Montini not stick by that conviction? No, instead, with the satanic Bugnini egging him on, the pope persisted in setting in motion the "abomination of desolation" with the sacriligeous Novus Ordo Missae. So much for being fed abundantly. Today the 'people of God' are being fed everything but the truth. So many novelties, so few saints. Ah, yes, the fruits of Vatican II. The Vatican was warned of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. See The Ottaviani Intervention
36) ecause the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the Traditional Mass.
This is obvious today in every NO church if they can still be recognized as churches. Over 30 years ago Father James Wathen warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years the New Order 'mass.' Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic! The Vatican was warned well in advance of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. See The Ottaviani Intervention
37) Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance error.
This is obvious today in practically every NO 'Mess.' Over 30 years ago Father James Wathen warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years the New Order 'mass.' Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic! The Vatican was warned well in advance of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. See The Ottaviani Intervention
38) Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and irreverence.
People today go to a church because of whose entertaining, not why. Over three decade time period they have forgotten the focus of why there was a Mass in the first place. Over 30 years ago Father James Wathen warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic! The Vatican was warned well in advance of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. See The Ottaviani Intervention
39) Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists and priests do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.
Yet the vast majority of priests are intimidated today by their bishops and peers who have been brainwashed themselves. In addition pressure is put on the ordained both in Diocesan muscle and threats. Even though modern Rome has admitted the Latin Mass was never abrogated they fear that to make this widespread would result in the exodus from the NOM back to the True Mass. Well, duh! Now we see what the Modernists are afraid of. Over 30 years ago Father James Wathen warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic! The Vatican was warned well in advance of this catastrophe before Paul VI issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. See The Ottaviani
40) Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar clothes (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated."
The quote is from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI on September 25, 1969 after he had issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. What the Cardinals wrote is inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for Bugnini had his ear and heart, Father James Wathen watched, studied and listened and then warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece over 30 years ago The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
41) Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a saint, Pius V; whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated by six Protestant ministers and a 33rd degree Freemason, i.e., Msgr. A Bugnini who was later exiled from the Vatican because of his ties with Freemasonry.
The facts are that Anibale Bugnini had every intention as documentation has been revealed, that his intention was to destroy the Mass of All Ages and, because Paul VI was so weak, so without backbone, that he allowed the dastardly Bugnini to push through the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. The Cardinals warned of this is inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for Bugnini had his ear and heart, others did. One of them was Father James Wathen who watched, studied and listened and then did something about it. He wrote a book, warning all in his irrefutable masterpiece over 30 years ago The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
42) Because the errors of the New Mass which are accentuated in the vernacular version are even present in the Latin text of the New Mass.
This is evident by the words pro multis and the omission of Mysterium Fide within the sacred words of Consecration in confecting the wine into blood. Without it? Well, as Pope Saint Pius V codified forever, without those words the validity was called into question. Today, when everything is questionable to the point of madness, why are so few Novus Ordinarians not questioning all of this? Because they have been so dumbed down and lobotomized into buying that the Pope can do no wrong. Blind Obedience is not a virtue. True obedience is. The Vatican was warned of this grave danger by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci on September 25, 1969 after Paul VI had issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. What the Cardinals wrote is inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for Annibale Bugnini had his ear and heart, Father James Wathen watched, studied and listened and then warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece over 30 years ago The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
43) Because the New Mass, with its ambiguity and permissiveness, exposes us to the wrath of God by facilitating the risk of invalid consecrations: "Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo Missae with the intention of 'doing what the Church does,' consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it!" *
Those are the very words of grave warning by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci on September 25, 1969 after Paul VI had issued the "abomination of desolation" on April 3, 1969. What the Cardinals wrote is inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for the confirmed 33rd Degree Mason Annibale Bugnini had his ear and heart, he and the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul." Father James Wathen could see this so clearly over 30 years ago and warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
44) Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: "And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people" and the observation of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Holy Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.
Who then can be surprised that Paul VI himself announced that satan was in the sanctuary. When? Why after Montini unleashed the "abomination of desolation" that's when. Stands to reason because the holy Doctor St. Alphonsus foretold such an occurrence. Today with so many complementing and caving to heretics that one can't tell one heretic from the other, we have a liturgy and religion emanating from modern Rome which are totally foreign to what eternal Rome always taught and upheld. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci on September 25, 1969 warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for the confirmed 33rd Degree Mason Annibale Bugnini had his ear and heart, he and the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul." Father James Wathen could see this so clearly over 30 years ago and warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
45) Because in places where the Traditional Mass is preserved, the Faith and fervor of the people are greater. Whereas the opposite is true where the New Mass reigns (Report on the Mass, Diocese of Campos, ROMA, Buenos Aires #69, 8/81)
The Faith and fervor of the people once so strong is already starting to show cracks with the Campos Compromise which has silenced the once-strong uncompromising voice standing up to the New Order. Now that they have agreed to modern Rome's proposal they are quiet when abuses occur and, slowly but surely, they will see for themselves sadly how great a prophetic statement they made over 20 years ago. By no longer criticizing the New Mass, the Faith and fervor are losing its savor. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci on September 25, 1969 warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for the confirmed 33rd Degree Mason Annibale Bugnini had his ear and heart, he and the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul." Father James Wathen could see this so clearly over 30 years ago and warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
46) Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new Code of Canon law, new calendar, -- in a word, a NEW CHURCH, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform ... do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of Episcopal Synod)

Naturally few heard of Archbishop Dwyer. Why? For the very reason he resisted the revolution he was not promoted by the VaticantwoArians. It is a pattern that has followed for 40 years. Speak out against the non-Catholic, Protestant and pan-religious agenda of The New Order and you are shunted to the hinterlands never to be heard from again; while those who have compromised their principles and the One True Faith are promoted to the highest echelons. No wonder the current College of Cardinals more resembles a cesspool than Princes of the Church. It bodes ill will for the next successor to the Primacy. And yet, it reinforces all the more the hope and promise that no matter how badly things have sunk to, Christ will not let the gates of hell prevail. It may well take Divine intervention but we must stay the course and, as today's Gospel asserts, sow the good seed. The seeds of Modernism will soon be blown to the winds, ill winds never to be heard from again. Thank God. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Baccion September 25, 1969, when there were still good Cardinals left, warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for the confirmed 33rd Degree Mason Annibale Bugnini had his ear and heart, he and the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul." Father James Wathen could see this so clearly over 30 years ago and warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
47) Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new Code of Canon law, new calendar, -- in a word, a NEW CHURCH, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform ... do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of Episcopal Synod)

Naturally few heard of Archbishop Dwyer. Why? For the very reason he resisted the revolution he was not promoted by the VaticantwoArians. It is a pattern that has followed for 40 years. Speak out against the non-Catholic, Protestant and pan-religious agenda of The New Order and you are shunted to the hinterlands never to be heard from again; while those who have compromised their principles and the One True Faith are promoted to the highest echelons. No wonder the current College of Cardinals more resembles a cesspool than Princes of the Church. It bodes ill will for the next successor to the Primacy. And yet, it reinforces all the more the hope and promise that no matter how badly things have sunk to, Christ will not let the gates of hell prevail. It may well take Divine intervention but we must stay the course and, as today's Gospel asserts, sow the good seed. The seeds of Modernism will soon be blown to the winds, ill winds never to be heard from again. Thank God. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Baccion September 25, 1969, when there were still good Cardinals left, warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for the confirmed 33rd Degree Mason Annibale Bugnini had his ear and heart, he and the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul." Father James Wathen could see this so clearly over 30 years ago and warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
48) Because the New mass embodies numerous errors condemned by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g., altar in form of table. See Mediator Dei).

Again, the very things that were condemned and accursed as anathema by wise and holy Pontiffs, by Holy Mother the Church are today elevated and given veracity as being noble and true in the newChurch. This is a contradiction that cannot hold water to the wine of truth. How can a doctrine or dogma be changed? It cannot. How can a dogmatic, sacred Council which pronounced with the Popes overseeing it, infallible doctrines - such as the Council of Trent be trumped by a pastoral-only council that was hijacked by progressivists, Protestants and the perverted? It is impossible. Therefore, every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention While the Pope didn't listen for the confirmed 33rd Degree Mason Annibale Bugnini had his ear and heart, he and the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul." Father James Wathen could see this so clearly over 30 years ago and warned of all this in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege proving the immediate devastations that had occurred in just the few years of the New Order. Imagine then nearly 33 years later! Tragic!
49) Because the New Mass attempts to transform the Catholic Church into a NEW, ecumenical church embracing ALL ideologies and ALL religions -- right and wrong, truth and error -- a goal long dreamt of by the ENEMIES of the Catholic Church.

This has been verified by the very enemies of the Church from the documented letter of congratulations to 'Buon' - code name for Archbishop Annibale Bugnini - for succeeding in undermining and sabotaging the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the synthetic, sacrilegious New Order Mass, which he had successfully cajoled Paul VI into issuing on April 3, 1969 - the day the "abomination of desolation" was unleashed on the world. Another architect of this devastation was Fr. Joseph Gelineau who also boasted and admitted the intent of the Modernists and Marxists in destroying the Holy Mass. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege, all document this so clearly. It is a fact, folks, if one truly wants to cling to the True Faith they must abandon the Novus Ordo and return to the Tried and True! The Tridentine Mass better known as the Traditional Latin Mass which alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
50) Because the New Mass, in removing the salutations and final blessing when the priest celebrates alone, shows a denial of, and disbelief in the dogma of the Communion of Saints.

All part of the erosion that is the synthetic liturgy which has been retooled over and over and over and over and, surprise, surprise, to no avail. No matter what innovation or novelty ICEL or the Bishops have tried to come up with to prop up the Novus Ordo they only create a bigger mess. Much like a farmer piling more manure on top of fetid fertilizer there is no sweet ground for it has been built upon the spoiled soil of anathema. The waste deposited on this 'holy ground,' which encompasses the sterile 'churches,' mausoleums, auditoriums and architectural monstrosities - can you say LA Cathedral? - has made it all the more evident the new church of Vatican II is a septic tank of ecumenism, humanism and Modernism that must be flushed out of every Catholic's system if they do not want their souls to be neck deep in the fecal matter of faithlessness. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege, all document the fact that the New Order is a cesspool. It is a fact, folks, if one truly wants to cling to the True Faith they must abandon the Novus Ordo and return to the Tried and True! The Tridentine Mass better known as the Traditional Latin Mass which alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
51) Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things which of their very nature, must remain together." (Pius XII)
So much for the wisdom of the past Pontiffs and Councils. Vatican II decided aggiornamento was more important than adoration. This was paramount in the erosion that is the synthetic liturgy. How do we separate the altar from the Tabernacle? Why, put up a table and remove the Tabernacle so it will 'have it's proper place' and 'won't distract from what is going on in the sanctuary.' A weaker argument few ever heard, yet we all went along with the destruction because we assumed it was okay. That great word 'assume' can be divided into three words which we know what it makes of you and me. That's how we feel today when we look back and see how devious the destruction was. How can this ever be good, have any fruits, especially when previous Pontiffs, many of them holy, condemned such direction? It cannot be good and it isn't. Therefore, flee from this fabricated man-made religion and liturgy that is no different from Protestantism except in name and terms, though even those have been adopted to please the Protestant mind-set. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege, all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul”
52) Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship between God and man, but rather it has become a horizontal worship between man and man.

No wonder they want the crucifixes taken down. They don't want to be reminded that the Mass is the propitiatory Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner. They don't want to be reminded that it is only through the alter Christus the priest that the sacrifice can take place via the consecrated hands and office of the ordained Sacerdos. They're too busy celebrating themselves, holding hands and making sure there are as many women in slacks as possible in the sanctuary. Even the Protestants are more reverent. At least they still recognize the cross, even if they don't want to put the Corpus upon it - for that is 'too Catholic.' There is no problem there with the New Order because they have denuded any Catholicity from the New Mass, or should we say 'Mess' for that is exactly what it has become. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege, all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
53) Because the New Mass, although appearing to conform to the dispositions of Vatican Council II, in reality opposes its instructions, since the Council itself declared its desire to conserve and promote the Traditional Rite.

But this is the very problem of the Council. Because it was not a dogmatic council, but merely a pastoral one where non-Catholic had seemingly more say than Catholic, ambiguity pummeled every document, planting what Michael Davies appropriately calls "Liturgical Time Bombs" that have been exploding and taking its toll of believers over the past 40 years. Had the Council been firm and definitive, there would have been no 'desire' to conserve and promote the Traditional rite, but rather a 'demand' and 'command' that the Traditions handed down not be tampered with. Once the horse is out of the barn, it is very difficult to corral, especially with so many flies of every stripe of heresy infecting it. These very problems were outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
54) Because the Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated and therefore remains a true rite of the Roman Catholic Church by which the faithful may fulfill their Sunday obligation.

Cardinal Darian Hoyos most recently confirmed this last year while saying the Latin Mass in St. Mary Major. Yet he, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by a holy Pontiff that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, but only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very coverup was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
55) Because Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual indult, valid "for always," to celebrate the Traditional Mass freely, licitly, without scruple of conscience, punishment, sentence or censure (Papal Bull "Quo Primum")

YES! St. Pius V set in stone the everlasting celebret - a perpetual indult. No Bishop, no priest and no Pope can override that. PERIOD! To do so is to go against the Holy Catholic Church! We all know the Pope and the Bishops have done just that by denying the Traditional Latin Mass except on their terms and only if one accepts the synthetic New Order liturgy which has so defiled the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice. Yet the church of Vatican II, the ecumaniacal hierarchy, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by a holy Pontiff that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, but only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very coverup was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this inThe Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
56) Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared. "The rite ... by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition ..." (11/19/69)

So there you have the enabler of the synthetic service admitting that no one has to follow his 'wish' for it is NOT A DOGMATIC DEFINITION, but merely a pastoral recommendation - a very, ill-advised and , as we have seen over the past 35 years, fated and tragic direction, but nevertheless, holding no binding decree. Notice the difference here, folks? One, the Dogmatic infallible Council of Trent decrees demand that we adhere, whereas the pastoral-only documents and proclamations of and since Vatican II only make the suggestion. Which are you going to heed when it comes to your eternal salvation? One that is definite and absolute and carries with it the weight of the Holy Ghost and the wrath of God if disobeyed, or pleasing men just so everyone can get along in the spirit of the humanistic 'unity of community'? The answer is obvious but not to those blind ostriches who still have their stubborn heads stuck in the sands of the Novus Ordo. Wake up, my friends, before you are washed away in total apostasy. As we have been emphasizing over the past several years, Pope St. Pius V set in stone the everlasting celebret - a perpetual indult. No Bishop, no priest and no Pope can override that. PERIOD! To do so is to go against the Holy Catholic Church! We all know the Pope and the Bishops have done just that by denying the Traditional Latin Mass except on their terms and only if one accepts the synthetic New Order liturgy which has so defiled the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice. Yet the church of Vatican II, the ecumaniacal hierarchy, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by St. Pius V that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, not only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very coverup of the True Mass was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this in The Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
57) Because Pope Paul VI, when asked by Cardinal Heenan of England, if he was abrogating or prohibiting the Tridentine Mass, answered: "It is not our intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass."

It might not have been their total intention, but just in that statement you can see the insidious agenda to do away with the Latin Mass by chiseling away at its set-in-stone status enjoyed since Pope Saint Pius V. By Montini's placement of the word "absolutely" we can see how ambiguity raised its ugly head. Had he said, "It is absolutely not our intention to prohibit the Tridentine Mass" that would have been a definite, but in the context Paul VI replied he leaves it open for the meaning of not totally prohibit, in other words, we'll give them a few crumbs until all the Latin lovers die off. That has been the attitude of so many VaticantwoArians and has been parroted by neo-Catholics without realizing what they are saying. But that has been the problem: the dumbed-down masses who buy anything the revolutionists tell them. Wake up, my friends, before you are washed away in total apostasy. As we have been emphasizing over the past several years, what St. Pius V set in stone with the everlasting celebret - a perpetual indult cannot be abrogated. No Bishop, no priest and no Pope can override that. PERIOD! To do so is to go against the Holy Catholic Church! We all know the Pope and the Bishops have done just that by denying the Traditional Latin Mass except on their terms and only if one accepts the synthetic New Order liturgy which has so defiled the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice. Yet the church of Vatican II, the ecumaniacal hierarchy, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by St. Pius V that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, not only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very coverup of the True Mass was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci back on September 25, 1969 could see this all coming and warned of this in The Ottaviani Intervention As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
58) Because "In the Libera Nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are NO LONGER MENTIONED; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril."

This was in the Letter of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Pope Paul VI, dated September 25, 1969, better known as The Ottaviani Intervention. Now, in a time when the world is in such peril - well, no wonder it has come to this because ever since the issuance of the synthetic man-made rite God has withdrawn His graces. Rather than striking our breasts in repentance in the manner of the Confiteor and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus we plod on depending on a man-made foundation to save us. Afraid it doesn't work that way, folks. While John Paul II issues every humanistic proclamation and utterance in the name of temporal world peace, all he needs do is look at the wreckovation of the Holy Mass and realize the fact that man abandoned God with such a blasphemous alteration of His Sacred Liturgy. He needs to realize that every Pope is vowed to uphold and pass on unchanged to his successor in preserving the Sacred Traditions. Not so the Vatican II popes who seemingly haven't got a clue, yet the attitude of so many VaticantwoArians, which is repeated in parroting fashion by neo-Catholics without realizing what they are saying, is that all this change, this abandonment of asking Our Lady and the saints for intercession is not necessary any more within the Mass. Oh, yes it is! That and the consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart could do wonders in easing these "times of peril." But stubborn hearts are blinded and will not listen to reason or the Truth of the Faith. They are dumbed-down lukewarm ones who buy anything the revolutionists tell them. Wake up, my friends, before you are washed away in total apostasy. As we have been emphasizing over the past several years, what St. Pius V set in stone with the everlasting celebret - a perpetual indult cannot be abrogated. No Bishop, no priest and no Pope can override that. PERIOD! To do so is to go against the Holy Catholic Church! We all know the Pope and the Bishops have done just that by denying the Traditional Latin Mass except on their terms and only if one accepts the synthetic New Order liturgy which has so defiled the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice. Yet the church of Vatican II, the ecumaniacal hierarchy, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by St. Pius V that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, not only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very cover-up of the True Mass was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
59) Because "In the Libera Nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are NO LONGER MENTIONED; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril."

This was in the Letter of Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Pope Paul VI, dated September 25, 1969, better known as The Ottaviani Intervention. Now, in a time when the world is in such peril - well, no wonder it has come to this because ever since the issuance of the synthetic man-made rite God has withdrawn His graces. Rather than striking our breasts in repentance in the manner of the Confiteor and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus we plod on depending on a man-made foundation to save us. Afraid it doesn't work that way, folks. While John Paul II issues every humanistic proclamation and utterance in the name of temporal world peace, all he needs do is look at the wreckovation of the Holy Mass and realize the fact that man abandoned God with such a blasphemous alteration of His Sacred Liturgy. He needs to realize that every Pope is vowed to uphold and pass on unchanged to his successor in preserving the Sacred Traditions. Not so the Vatican II popes who seemingly haven't got a clue, yet the attitude of so many VaticantwoArians, which is repeated in parroting fashion by neo-Catholics without realizing what they are saying, is that all this change, this abandonment of asking Our Lady and the saints for intercession is not necessary any more within the Mass. Oh, yes it is! That and the consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart could do wonders in easing these "times of peril." But stubborn hearts are blinded and will not listen to reason or the Truth of the Faith. They are dumbed-down lukewarm ones who buy anything the revolutionists tell them. Wake up, my friends, before you are washed away in total apostasy. As we have been emphasizing over the past several years, what St. Pius V set in stone with the everlasting celebret - a perpetual indult cannot be abrogated. No Bishop, no priest and no Pope can override that. PERIOD! To do so is to go against the Holy Catholic Church! We all know the Pope and the Bishops have done just that by denying the Traditional Latin Mass except on their terms and only if one accepts the synthetic New Order liturgy which has so defiled the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice. Yet the church of Vatican II, the ecumaniacal hierarchy, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by St. Pius V that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, not only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very cover-up of the True Mass was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
60) Because we recognize the Holy Father's supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a pra

(reasons cont.)

60) Because we recognize the Holy Father's supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a practice which is so CLEARLY against the Faith: a Mass that is equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore disagreeable to God.

This Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci knew without a shadow of a doubt and pleaded with Pope Paul VI, outlining the grave dangers September 25, 1969 in what is known as The Ottaviani Intervention. Just as that assertion that Paul VI had no right to impose anything against the Faith, so also every Catholic has the right to resist John Paul II's continued insanity of promulgating this great sacrilege and going even further than his predecessors in allowing and encouraging the profane. Saint Robert Bellarmine, the great Doctor of the Church stated quite clearly in his masterful work De Romano Pontifice "It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth: and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church. It is permissible, I say, to resist him by not doing what he enjoins and by preventing his will to triumph." And if the offending Pontiff continues in his error, his anathema, then St. Robert confirms from citing St. Cyprian as well as Driedonus and Melchior Cano that "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." The same holds for the bishops, which sadly, are most of today's Modernist Masonic men in Miters. Yet, even sadder, so many stubborn hearts are blinded and will not listen to reason or the Truth of the Faith. They are dumbed-down lukewarm ones who buy anything the revolutionists tell them. Wake up, my friends, before you are washed away in total apostasy. As we have been emphasizing over the past several years, what St. Pius V set in stone with the everlasting celebret - a perpetual indult cannot be abrogated. No Bishop, no priest and no Pope can override that. PERIOD! To do so is to go against the Holy Catholic Church! We all know the Pope and the Bishops have done just that by denying the Traditional Latin Mass except on their terms and only if one accepts the synthetic New Order liturgy which has so defiled the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice. Yet the church of Vatican II, the ecumaniacal hierarchy, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by St. Pius V that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, not only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very cover-up of the True Mass was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul”
61) Because, as stated in Vatican Council I, the "Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably KEEP AND FAITHFULLY EXPOUND the revelation or deposit of Faith delivered through the Apostles."

This Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci knew without a shadow of a doubt and pleaded with Pope Paul VI, outlining the grave danger of such veering from the Sacred Deposit of the Faith on September 25, 1969 in what is known as The Ottaviani Intervention. Just as that assertion that Paul VI had no right to impose anything against the Faith or make new doctrine while going directly against the decrees of the dogmatic First Vatican Council, so John Paul II has continued the insanity and abandonment of the True Faith for in every one of his moves during his failed 25-year papacy he has NOT inviolably KEPT AND FAITHFULY EXPOUNDED the revelation or deposit of Faith as passed down from the Apostles! He has tried to cover his tracks by issuing a NEW Code of Canon Law, a NEW curia, a NEW catechism, and a NEW doctrine - basically a NEW RELIGION for he has abandoned his own solemn oath and has betrayed his successors who upheld the infallible decrees of Trent and Vatican I. The facts are that he has not uttered one infallible word ex cathedra in his quarter of a century occupying the throne of Peter, NOT ONE INFALLIBLE WORD in the tomes and tomes of papers and pronouncements he has issued! He has allowed the NEW 'Mass' to become even 'NEWER' as if it is evolving. What it and the entire institution of Vatican II have turned into is a MESS not a Mass. The same holds for the bishops, which sadly, are most of today's Modernist Masonic men in Miters. Yet, even sadder, so many stubborn hearts are blinded and will not listen to reason or the Truth of the Faith. They are dumbed-down lukewarm ones who buy anything the revolutionists tell them. This Pope can do no wrong when, in truth, he has done very, very little right! To those who think we are "Pope Bashing," read yesterday's 60th Reason. Wake up, my friends, before you are washed away in total apostasy. As we have been emphasizing over the past several years, what St. Pius V set in stone with the everlasting celebret - a perpetual indult cannot be abrogated. No Bishop, no priest and no Pope can override that. PERIOD! To do so is to go against the Holy Catholic Church! We all know the Pope and the Bishops have done just that by denying the Traditional Latin Mass except on their terms and only if one accepts the synthetic New Order liturgy which has so defiled the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice. Yet the church of Vatican II, the ecumaniacal hierarchy, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by St. Pius V that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, not only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very cover-up of the True Mass was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul."
62) Because heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be a matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and NOT Faith at the service of obedience! In this foregoing case then, "One must obey God before men." (Acts 5:29)

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci knew without a shadow of a doubt of the fact that the 'New Mass' was placing man before God. They pleaded with Paul VI, outlining the grave danger of embracing heresy and making the Faith at the service of obedience, that he was veering from the Sacred Deposit of the Faith on September 25, 1969. This plea is known as The Ottaviani Intervention. Just as that assertion that Paul VI had no right to impose anything against the Faith or make new doctrine while going directly against the decrees of the dogmatic First Vatican Council, so John Paul II has continued the insanity and abandonment of the True Faith for in every one of his moves during his failed 25-year papacy he has DONE NOTHING to reverse the heresy introduced by Paul VI. He has done nothing to preserve the Sacred f Faith as passed down from the Apostles! He has tried to cover his tracks by issuing a NEW Code of Canon Law, a NEW curia, a NEW catechism, and a NEW doctrine - basically a NEW RELIGION for he has abandoned his own solemn oath and has betrayed his successors who upheld the infallible decrees of Trent and Vatican I. The facts are that he has not uttered one infallible word ex cathedra in his quarter of a century occupying the throne of Peter, NOT ONE INFALLIBLE WORD in the tomes and tomes of papers and pronouncements he has issued! He has allowed the NEW 'Mass' to become even 'NEWER' as if it is evolving. What it and the entire institution of Vatican II have turned into is a MESS not a Mass. The same holds for the bishops, which sadly, are most of today's Modernist Masonic men in Miters. Yet, even sadder, so many stubborn hearts are blinded and will not listen to reason or the Truth of the Faith. They are dumbed-down lukewarm ones who buy anything the revolutionists tell them. This Pope can do no wrong when, in truth, he has done very, very little right! To those who think we are "Pope Bashing," read Monday's 60th Reason. Wake up, my friends, before you are washed away in total apostasy. As we have been emphasizing over the past several years, what St. Pius V set in stone with the everlasting celebret - a perpetual indult cannot be abrogated. It was service in obedience to Faith. No Bishop, no priest and no Pope can override that. PERIOD! To do so is to go against the Holy Catholic Church it is for them to say Faith is at the service of obedience. NO. It is not! Yet, we all know the Pope and the Bishops have done just that by denying the Traditional Latin Mass except on their terms and only if one accepts the synthetic New Order liturgy which has so defiled the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice. Yet the church of Vatican II, the ecumaniacal hierarchy, like all in the curia including the one who appoints them - the Pope himself - are afraid to 'go public' with this vital truth so the people will know. Instead Catholics are told that a Latin Mass can only be said with the permission of the Bishop (Fat chance!) or a celebret from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which, in fact, is illegal and unnecessary because of the perpetual celebret issued by St. Pius V that every priest for all time must say the unchangeable Mass of All Ages in the Mother tongue of the Church. The truth is the Pope and Bishops fear that were this knowledge acknowledged, there would be rightfully so a mass exodus from the Novus Ordo, not only by the laity but many priests. We can only pray that this will become more manifest as discussion continues over Gibson's film and his own beliefs which embrace all that was taught before Vatican II. This very cover-up of the True Mass was outlined quite clearly by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (They Have Uncrowned Him and Open Letter to Confused Catholics), Atila Sinke Guimarães, (The Murky Waters of Vatican II, Animus Delendi I and II) Romano Amerio (Iota Unum), Fr. Ralph Wiltgen (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber) and Father James Wathen in his irrefutable masterpiece The Great Sacrilege. They all document that the Traditional Latin Mass alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true vertical worship of the Triune Divinity. Every Catholic has a moral obligation to abandon the new false religion and return to the True tenets and practices of the Church as practiced from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII. As we know no Pope since Pius XII has listened to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church and for this stubborn, prideful promotion of the church of Vatican II have indeed "incurred the wrath of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul." This is the sixty-second and final reason of 62 reasons submitted by the Priests of Campos on Easter Sunday 1982 and endorsed by the late great Bishop Antoni

Cutting and pasting this much unoriginal material is a gross misuse of a Talk page.

It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth: and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church. (Cardinal Bellarmine)

On this basis, many (including Old Catholics and Anglo-Catholics) may feel justified in resisting Pope Pius X and his imposition of papal infallibility, which is possibly the most "soul-invading" thing the papacy has ever done.

he (i,e, John Paul II) has not uttered one infallible word ex cathedra in his quarter of a century occupying the throne of Peter

Of all the post-Vatican I popes, only Pius XII ever did so. Retrospectively, Pius IX is supposed to have done so, and perhaps a couple of medieval popes. Hardly much of a criticism, then.

The Tridentine Mass better known as the Traditional Latin Mass which alone provides the divinely ordained formula for true worship of the Triune Divinity.

The Byzantine Rite has always (always) been acknowledged by the Church of Rome as a valid form of Eucharist; the Ambrosian Rite is also so recognized, as are various Syriac and other Eastern Rites. The above statement must therefore necessarily be utterly false. As I said before, "I'm not sure which is more staggering: the ignorance or the bigotry".

>10 Joansknight: By the way, the Roman-Greek schism of 1054 has nothing to do with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which had already separated from the Imperial Church after the council of Chalcedon (451).

>17 MyopicBookworm:

Details, details...

Thanks for joining us Tim.

All that Book Worm has pointed out is very interesting, but what does that have to do with the abomination of the Novus Ordo mass?

Papal Infallibility doesn't mean that he is a perfect human being. It merely means he is correct when it comes to Church Doctrine. I don't mean like if he created new Church doctrine (like Vatican II did), It means defining and defending existing doctrine. Papal Infallibility is a dogma of the Church. Here is another example of something you pick and choose on whether to believe in it or not. I can not remember off hand, but past popes did speak of infallibility.

but what does that have to do with the abomination of the Novus Ordo mass?

It's not an abomination, it's a perfectly valid reform of the liturgy conducted by the appropriate church authorities, and disliked so much by those who have a sentimental attachment to the old form that they have invented spurious reasons to declare it invalid: to the point of denying the authority of the See of Rome and becoming a schismatic sect, or rather, an assemblage of small sects.

Their reasons include the manifestly false claim (which I quoted in 16) that the Tridentine Mass is the only valid form of Eucharist. As far as I understand it, the claim that the Tridentine Rite of Pius XII is unchanged from that of Pius V is probably false too.

As for papal infallibility, it was indeed a permissible doctrine prior to Vatican I, but not a required dogma. (So was the Immaculate Conception.) To make it a dogma required of all Catholics was a huge and unwarranted change in the deposit of faith and many Catholics broke with Rome over the issue.

>20 MyopicBookworm:: So you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception either? You should be a Protestant.

21:

Most non-Romans don't.

True - but most non-Romans don't know what it means. Even quite educated people who are Christian seem to think it refers to the conception of Jesus rather than his mother. But even if they knew I expect many would still reject it.

23: Then they are heretics.

>23 PossMan:

True, but I suspect most self-identified Anglo-Catholics (like Bookworm and myself) do. (And even some Anglican Protestants. I was at a Young Adult Retreat for the Diocese of New Jersey which ended in an "Ask a Priest" session, and one young woman's question that she clearly understood the doctrine (but not that Anglicans typically don't hold it!).)

>25 cjbanning:: Why would Anglicans believe in that doctrine? They are Protestants and heretics.

>26 Joansknight:

Beats me.

I know Book Worm hates my quotes, but here goes nothing: If the world goes against the truth, then Athanasius goes against the world Athanasius contra mundum.

- Saint Athanasius (ca. 296-373)

Athanasius said the same thing twice, the second time in Latin, with no intervening punctuation. Then again, they may not have invented punctuation yet. Then again again, he probably didn't write the sentence in English either, so one would have expected the translater to . . . I dunno, but do something differently.

>21 Joansknight: No, I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception. It is based on a flawed understanding of original sin, and contributes to an excessive Mariolatry which distracts believers from God.

(I am a self-confessed heretic, and technically a "Protestant".)

>29 Joansknight: Any small embattled group can wave "Athanasius Contra Mundum" as a slogan. Being a reviled minority is not a guarantee of truth. I am concerned with truth, which is why, even though I do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist (in its entirety as currently taught), I feel obliged to point out the falsity of the claims made for the Traditional Roman Mass: falsity not from my point of view, but in terms of the arguments from Roman tradition and authority that the proponents invoke.

I was open to believing in the Immaculate Conception, but I never understood its understanding of original sin, flawed or otherwise. Did Mary suffer the concupiscience which is the temporal consequence of original sin but is not itself sin (CCC 1264) ? If so, where did that concupiscience come from if not from original sin? If not, then is how is her doing God's will at all impressive if she didn't have temptation to fight against, the way all the rest of us human beings do?

The movement in favor of the traditional Mass strikes me as NOT deriving from any love of the Latin Language, but organized nostalgia for "That Old-time religion of forty years ago".

Iʻm a classicist, so I love Latin, and a historian -- at least amateur -- so, to those who make "claims for the traditional Roman Mass", I would say that the origin of the Latin Mass itself was the same as the origin of the Vernacular Mass in the 1960s: the desire to change to the vernacular
of Western Europe as against the Greek of the
original mass, which was by now "Foreign" -- and perhaps archaic. The Latin, on the other hand was very colloquial, based on spoken rather than written Latin. ("Eleison", as in "Kyrie Eleison", rather than rather than the Latin "Domine, Miserere" survived from the Greek Mass in the Latin).
Having known this, the change to the vernaculars about the time of Vatican II didnʻt surprise me.

>33 rolandperkins: I agree: the same impetus leads some English Anglicans to pine for the archaic English of the 1662 Prayer Book, not really for love of 17th-century English, but they want to go back to those more self-confident times of the early to mid 20th century.

This is all fine and interesting. We could have a fine debate about many of the points here.

I suggest we don't. And here's why. The "Most Holy Family" group aren't just Catholics with controversial opinions about the mass, or whatever. Nor are they traditionalists with rather retrograde opinions of Jews, and crazy opinions about masonic control of the United States. If they were, that would be one thing. I'm willing to argue against bigotry and craziness sometimes.

But I've taken a closer look, and found a good deal more. I have found that the "Holy Family Monastery," which the OP over and over again sites and links to, is also committed to Holocaust denial.

Some evidence:

Title: Facts which contradict the official “Holocaust” story
Quotes too numerous to mention.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_holocaust.php

Title: An Analysis of Benedict XVI’s Visit to the Synagogue
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/analysis_of_BenedictXVIs_visit_to_Synagog...

"Benedict XVI then proceeded to mention the Jewish “Holocaust.” This may be slightly off topic, but, in case you didn’t know, six million Jews were not killed during the “Holocaust.” ... It is probable that a few hundred thousand Jews were killed during the period, along with similar numbers from other religions, including Catholics. ... The “Holocaust” myth is crucial for Jewish power today. It is one of the Jews’ most effective tools for control in the world, which they often use to obliterate public reference to Christ, and to diminish the public influence of Christianity."

More with a simple Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=site%3Amos...

What's the right response to Holocaust deniers? Is it really to go on making theological chit-chat?

> 35

No, not really.

ETA

I'd said that the whole thing is tied in with rabid American conspiracy theories .. I'm quite confident that the whole thing is a heap of batshit. You confirm that it is quite unpleasant. In fact, I withdraw my previous comparison, as batshit is actually not as bad as all that, and the sheen of fragmented beetle wingcases can be quite visually appealing. Whereas Holocaust denial usually stinks.

I do believe, very much that the holocaust took place. I have not read any of MHFM's other material on some of their other views. But in the matter of Faith I have no doubts.

I think most people focus on the Jewish holocaust and they neglect to point out the millions of Catholics tortured and murdered, from the Reformation to Soviet Russia and beyond all in the name of Christ. Believe me, that number far out-cedes the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust....and they died for Christ.

Do you believe in Christ Book Worm?

"millions of Catholics tortured and murdered, from the Reformation to Soviet Russia..." (37)

Well, I donʻt know the figures, but it would be fewer Catholics killed proportionately, than in England and Scotland. Most historians say that
Russia did not go through any British/Western European style reformation. (They did have the government-imposed reforms of Peter the Great, but in those, both factions -- the Old Believers and
the Czarist Establishment were Orthodox and Anti-Catholic.
Stalin, of course, (1920s -- 1953 ) was a Marxist, hostile to all religions, and was responsible for the deaths of Orthodox Christians, Jews, Atheists, and (a comparatively f ew) Catholics. He forced the surviving Uniate Catholics in what is now the Ukraine and Belarus, who were affiliated with Rome, but used an almost entirely Eastern Orthodox liturgy, to convert to Orthodoxy. Dictators, and even more moderate governments, have a tendency to believe that, if you must have religion, then the whole nation should be, at least nominally, of the SAME religion.
Hitler is said to have advised the top Nazis to return to the religion of their upbringing,*whether Lutheran, Catholic, or Reformed. (With one exception. He said he himself did NOT intend to return to the Catholicism of his upbringing.) Hitlerʻs apparent grudging toleration of the tri-partite German religious situation, reminded me that a similar belief when I was growing up about a tri-partite division in U.S. religion: That
there are, basically, only three religions: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish. In reality , of course, the U.S. is a multi-religious country. Ignored in the tri-partite scenario are Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists,
and many small sects/cults.

*See the Memoirs of Albert Speer

>38 rolandperkins: I seem to recall when I was in Uganda in the 1970s Idi Amin declared that only four religions were permitted: Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Muslim.

I didnʻt know that about Idi Amin. (39)

Another dictator in a neighboring country*, Iʻve read, made changes of religion -- perhaps more than once -- ending up Christian> Muslim.
Boris Yeltsin made a similar proclamation in
the early post-Soviet period: that only "traditional" religions should be allowed in the new Russian state: These were defined as
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. The members of those last would be mainly
people whose roots were in the Eastern republics of the Soviet Union. "Christianity" was
defined as the Russian Orthodox Church. This excluded many Christians, notably Mormons
and Baptists, who did have a sizable number of adherents, even in the Soviet period.
Yeltsin joined or rejoined the Orthodox Church. So did a lot of ordinary Russians. Whether higher-ups did the same, I donʻt know.
You may know more about the Yeltsin
proclamation and definitions than I do, John.
Iʻve never really followed this up, and Iʻm not sure if it was decree or only recommendation.

*The "emperor" of the Central African Empire
aka {Central African Republic, a francophone country. Iʻve forgotten his name.

>40 rolandperkins: Iʻve forgotten his name

Bokassa

"Bokassa" (41)

Thanks, John

>38 rolandperkins:, 39 & 40: Interesting insights.

Jesus saith: “He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.” (John 8:47)

38: Jews also took part in the Russian Revolution. Several Jews were active participants in the murderers of Nicholas II and his family....and other Romanovs.

FROM THE ROMAN CATECHISM-THE TRUE CATECHISM OF THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH

RTICLE IX : "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH; THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS"

The Importance Of This Article

With what great diligence pastors ought to explain to the faithful the truth of this ninth Article will be easily seen, if we attend chiefly to two considerations.

First, as St. Augustine observes, the Prophets spoke more plainly and openly of the Church than of Christ, foreseeing that on this a much greater number may err and be deceived than on the mystery of the Incarnation. For in after ages there would not be wanting wicked men who, like the ape that would fain pass for a man, would claim that they alone were Catholics, and with no less impiety than effrontery assert that with them alone is the Catholic Church.

The second consideration is that he whose mind is strongly impressed with the truth taught in this Article, will easily escape the awful danger of heresy. For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity. Since, therefore, it is impossible that anyone be infected with the contagion of heresy, so long as he holds what this Article proposes to be believed, let pastors use every diligence that the faithful, having known this mystery and guarded against the wiles of Satan, may persevere in the true faith.

This Article hinges upon the preceding one; for, it having been already shown that the Holy Ghost is the source and giver of all holiness, we here profess our belief that the Church has been endowed by Him with sanctity.

Apparently St. Pius V and St. Charles Borromeo had some insight to the future....

I see Book Worm doesn't wish to answer my question....if she believes in Christ? Do any members of the Novus Ordo church believe in Christ or do they err on the side of caution with other false religions who do not believe in Christ?

This is part of the oath of my baptismal covenant (with slightly altered wording):

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Begotten One, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; who descended into hell; who on the third day rose again; who ascended into heaven, who is seated at the hand of the Almighty, and who will come to judge the living and the dead.

Joansknight, even in the "anti"-Catholic Church we still profess the Nicene Creed, and say it together every Sunday.

>48 John5918:: You also live by the doctrine of man. Saying words is easy....living by them is another thing.

Man, NOT Christ is the center of your mass....

>49 Joansknight: Man, NOT Christ is the center of your mass....

Obviously we disagree on that one.

>50 John5918:: compare both masses, and tell me honestly which is more Christ-centered. You deny that the Novus Ordo mass isn't just a glorified Protestant service? Look at the Novus Ordo's newer churches are utilitarian and Protestant looking.

>51 Joansknight: Well, first of all I would say that "Protestant-looking", whatever that means, doesn't mean Christ is not at the centre of the Mass. But to answer directly your comparison about both masses, I don't think one is more Christ-centred than the other. It's basically the same Mass; the changes do not alter the substance of it.

(I was ignoring this thread, but I'm crap at keeping to resolutions.)

46 Do any members of the Novus Ordo church believe in Christ

They profess to do so at every mass, yet when they said so, you discounted it (49 Man, NOT Christ is the center of your mass....) offering no reason but your own prejudice. So why ask the question?

In fact, I do not know what you might mean by "believe in Christ", since you view everything through a filter of peculiar pseudo-Catholic dogmatism. I am not a member of the "Novus Ordo" Church. I was baptised as a child into the Anglican communion, and confirmed when old enough to say "I turn to Christ" for myself. I would now describe myself as a Christian agnostic. Make of that what you will: what Christ makes of it is up to him.

You deny that the Novus Ordo mass isn't just a glorified Protestant service?

Glorified indeed: the glory of God may surely be found there if anywhere. I cannot confirm that the traditional Latin Catholic Mass is Christ-centred. I went to one once, but the priest mumbled most of it quite inaudibly while doing obscure things at the altar, and the few bits I could hear were in Latin, which I do not speak fluently. My sympathies with the Reformers (of both Lutheran and Vatican II varieties) were considerably enhanced by the experience.

"By their fruits you shall know them" (Matthew 7:20, Douay-Rheims translation)

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/hoyle-court-case-most-holy-family-monastery-m...

I've joined this group in admittedly bad faith to ask a question, after which I'll disappear again:

What about this conversation re Jews?

>54 krolik:

The OP is a big fan of stone-cold holocaust deniers'--quoting constantly from their website--but says he believes in the holocaust.(1) Even so he minimizes the holocaust in comparison to Catholic suffering and talks darkly of Jewish complicity in communism and the death of the Romanoffs. He likes to refer to Pope Benedict as "Rabbi," which he calls "a joke" related to the Pope's visiting a synagogue--which the Holy Family Monastery gang thinks was an act of "public apostasy."

I at least think the answer is a policy of not discussion of views so very far beyond the pale. Given his praise of websites involved in holocaust denial and public statements that are only a whit less objectionable we should ask whether there is any point served, except promotion of such views.

---

(1) The other website he favors is less direct, but also selectively puts quotes around "Holocaust," eg., a story on "'Holocaust' commemoration in Seattle 'Catholic' classrooms," glossed as "Catechesis for a new religion."

In the domain of morality, is it not an accepted principle of our Western bourgeois world that there is no absolute distinction between right and wrong rooted in the eternal order of God, but that they are relative and dependent entirely upon one's point of view? Hence when the Western world wishes to decide what is right and wrong even in certain moral matters, it takes a poll-forgetful that the majority never makes a thing right, because right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. the first pool of public opinion taken in history of Christianity was on Pilate's front porch, and it was wrong.

- Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

>52 John5918: I've just come from Mass where I was again thinking of this question. I would still say that both versions of the Mass are equally Christ-centred, but I think the current version perhaps makes Christ more accessible.

>57 John5918:: More accessible? The Novus Ordo mass, in most parishes, lacks reverence.

Here is one example that upset me: Years ago, at a Saturday evening mass (mass should be celebrated on Sunday), the priest said mass quickly because the University of Michigan-Ohio State football game was being televised. I can give many more examples of lack of reverence for the mass or Christ.

>58 Joansknight: I can give many more examples of lack of reverence

Of course you can. So can I. There will always be lack of reverence by some people at some time. Lightning-quick Masses in Ireland did not start with the newest version of the Mass - it was there with the older version too.

I can give many more examples of lack of reverence for the mass or Christ.

So can I, starting with the decadent custom of regarding mass as a daily office to be rattled off by all priests, instead of a community liturgy to be celebrated once a week. And you can't blame Vatican II for that one.

>60 MyopicBookworm:: The holy sacrifice of the mass is not about having a throng of people around, it is about Christ.

Most Novus Ordo priests do not say a mass daily anyway.

I am sorry you find it offensive that a priest would celebrate Christ's sacrifice daily. Heaven forbid if everyone thought of Christ so often.

Being an Anglican, why would you care about the Catholic Church anyway?

>61 Joansknight: The holy sacrifice of the mass is not about having a throng of people around, it is about Christ.

I think you'll find that there is a connection between the two.

Most Novus Ordo priests do not say a mass daily anyway

Where do you get that statistic from? Most (but of course not all) priests that I know do in fact try to "say a Mass" (celebrate the Eucharist) daily.

>62 John5918:: Not in the United States. The Novus Ordo church in the United States has a mind of its own.

61: "Being an Anglican, why would you care about the Catholic Church anyway?"

I won't speak for Bookworm, but I care about the Roman church because it is a (very large) branch of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ which subsists in the apostolic churches as governed by the historic episcopate. Furthermore, it is the source of a great deal of Anglicanism's claims to apostolic succession (although tpday it also has sources in Orthodoxy and other non-Roman lines) and the originator of much Anglo-Catholic praxis. It was through the Church of Rome that the sacraments were handed down to the Anglican Communion from the apostles. It was through the Church of Rome that the creeds and other essential doctrines were handed down to the Anglican Communion. Plus I think the Council of Trent got most things pretty darn right.

Why should an Anglican care about the Church of Rome? Because scripture tells us to honor our parents.

>58 Joansknight: "The Novus Ordo mass, in most parishes, lacks reverence."

You could only make that statement with authority if you have attended Mass in most parishes. My guess is that you have never attended. You are relying on third parties who also lack the necessary authority.

How can you make a statement like that!!!! You have no idea!

>65 2wonderY:: I attented the Novus Ordo mass from childhood until just a few years ago. I can and will make that statement because it is true.

The Novus Ordo church I went to, people would sit in their pews talking before mass. It was a social gathering to them. Very few people genuflected before the tabernacle (which was off to the side). And the way some girls dressed in the summer was totally disrespectful and immoral.

It is better that scandal arise than that the truth be concealed.

- Pope St. Gregory the Great

66: "And the way some girls dressed in the summer was totally disrespectful and immoral."

It sounds like I, for one, would have been encouraged to give glory to God and to the beauty of God's creation.

>68 cjbanning:: That sounds exactly like something in our over sexualized society would say.

Man cannot perform a more holy, a more grand, a more sublime action than to celebrate a Mass, in regard to which the Council of Trent says: "We must needs confess that no other work can be performed ... so holy and divine as this tremendous Mystery itself. God Himself cannot cause an action to be performed that is holier and grander than the celebration of Mass.

- Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787), The Holy Mass

He is definitely not referring to the Novus Ordo mass either.

>70 Joansknight: He is referring to the Mass as it had been developed up to that point by the Catholic Church, and there is no reason to expect him not to be referring to it as it continues to develop.

>71 John5918:: What on earth is it to develop into? A week long carnival? The remembrance of Christ's sacrifice is not a celebration (though a great deal of Novus Ordo churches do that now). Should we not follow the examples of the saints? Then we should follow Saint Alphonsus Liguori's example. The mass of his time is the same mass as today. Only the Novus Ordo church changed it at the behest of Satan.

The sacrifice of the mass is not for man, it is for God. To be a constant reminder of His passion and death. It is for His glory and honor. Man only benefits from Christ's sacrifice it is not for man. It is for God alone and alone God is to be the centre of the sacrifice. God is always with us throughout our lives. The most holy mass is how we can be with him, and if we are in a state of grace, we can truly be one with Him.

Besides, as I said before, the consecration in the Novus Ordo mass is invalid. So there is no sacrifice and no benefit to anyone who thinks they are receiving Christ.

>73 Joansknight: Are you aware that the Mass developed greatly during the first 1,500 years or so of the Church? Yet nobody tried to say that the Mass of, say, 1200 AD is invalid because it is not the Mass of say, 650 AD (and it would have been different in different places, too, as there were several liturgical rites within the Latin Church). The current version of the Mass is a legitimate development in tune with Church tradition.

>74 John5918:: That would be true had manifest heretics and their Protestant friends desacrated the mass and created a new religion.

Please show me how they are in tune with Church Tradition?

For example: anyone in your Novus Ordo church can manhandle consecrated hosts (which their not so it doesn't matter who touches them) when in the TRADITION OF THE CHURCH, only consecrated hands (your clergy aren't) can touch consecrated hosts and consecrated wine.

Please tell me how that is in tune with Church Tradition. You can't and it isn't.

Talk about begging the question!

>76 cjbanning:: Please explain....

So our Mass goes back without essential change to the age when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as God.... There is not in Christendom a rite so venerable as ours.

- Adrian Fortescue (England's greatest liturgical historian, 1874-1923), The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (London, 1917), p. 213

>78 Joansknight: I think the key word there is "essential", ie without change to the essence. I would say that is true; our rite is indeed venerable. What has changed, not just in the last 40 years but over the entire 2,000 years of Church history, is the form in which that essence is expressed.

>75 Joansknight: "Manhandle" is rather a value-laden word! What is the key value being expressed regarding consecrated hosts? Surely it is to reverence them and treat them as holy. Having a host hurriedly stuffed in your mouth and the priest getting saliva all over his fingers is not necessarily very reverent (I've experienced both ends of that, giving and receiving). Receiving the host reverently in the hand is far more dignified, in my experience. But either way, the exact form is an attempt to express a deeper value. Focus on the value, not the form, and you'll find that the Mass has not changed in its essentials.

All the world knows that this Divine promise ought to be understood to apply to the Universal Church and not to any part of the church taken in isolation, for individual segments may, and in fact, indeed have, been overcome by the forces of evil.

- Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896

The crosses with which our path through life is strewn associate us with Jesus in the mystery of His crucifixion.

- St. John Eudes (1601-1680)

Place your mind before the mirror of eternity! Place your soul in the brilliance of glory! And transform your entire being into the image of the Godhead Itself through contemplation.

-St. Clare of Assissi (1194 – 1253)

Hey, it seems to have as much to do with the topic as #81 does, so far as I can see.

>82 cjbanning:: Where did you find that quote? I like St. Clare.

I think I googled "saint clare of assissi quotes" and it was the top hit or something.

claresaint::Saint Clare is my favorite historical saint, for a value of "historical" which excludes Biblical saints. (St. Thomas is my favorite Biblical saint.) This is admittedly in part because she is, according to the RCC (and I think this was prior to when you date your whatchayacallit), the patron saint of television, which makes her in an indirect sort of way the patron saint of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. But of course the way she and St. Francis modeled a life of voluntary poverty is quite compelling. (Another of my great Catholic heroes is daydorothy::Dorothy Day, for the same reason.)

The Catholic part of my Anglo-Catholicism definitely shows when I say that I take a great deal of comfort in the knowledge that St. Clare is praying for me.

>83 Joansknight:: Did you see the movie ENTERTAINING ANGELS starring MOIRA KELLY? It is about Dorothy Day?

>85 Joansknight:

We watched it in my theology class in high school. (I think in my senior year, which focused on social justice issues and Catholic Social Teaching.) I enjoyed it a lot, although I don't think it was until I began to read her writing (and/or other elements of my life shifted to encorage me to be properly receptive) that I began to find her example truly transformative.

The Church must steadily and firmly heed that although the language of the people may change, the language of liturgy should not be altered. Thus, the Mass must be said in the language in which it was said from the beginning, even if such a language be already, antiquated and strange to the people, for it is wholly enough, if the learned men understand it.

- Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), De Missae Sacrificio, 2, II

>87 Joansknight: So the Mass must be said in Aramaic, as presumably that's the language Jesus used when he instituted the Mass at the Last Supper?

>88 John5918:: Hello John. I know you know that's not what Pope Benedict meant.

"Mass . . .in Aramaic..." (88)
"...NOT what Pope Benedict (XIV) meant? (89)

Thatʻs right, he didnʻt mean Aramaic. He meant the Latin that had been in use for about the past millennium and a half. Iʻm only surprised that he found it necessary to defend a Latin Mass; I would have thought it was pretty well accepted at that time. I doubt that he was responding to any movement in favor of a vernacular mass such as was introduced in the 1960s by the "heretics" that you, Joansknight, have been describing to us. But Benedict XIV makes it sound as if the language of the mass
was somewhat like the King James Bibleʻs language is in our time: To readers of today, itʻs not a foreign language, but it is, as the Pope said of Latin "antiquated and strange" to an oridnary English-speaking person.
But Latin in the 18th century really WAS a foreign language to everybody -- even to the Italians of Latinʻs home country. It lasted much longer in writing than in speaking, but by 1700, even the writing of it was becoming rare. It required special study, and it got the reputation of being a "hard" language. (I donʻt think Linguistic Theory today considers any language "hard" or "easy" -- but thatʻs another topic). So it is misleading to imply that Latin was just archaic or "antiquated".
And the Pope may or may not have been aware that, if you go back to early Christian times, Latin itself was intended to be a vernacular -- to be "our" spoken language in the West,
as opposed to the Eastern Christiansʻ Greek.
I am a classicist, and I love Latin, but I do realilze that the change to the vernacular doesnʻt go against Catholic tradition in treatment of Language at all.

>90 rolandperkins:: In Pope Benedict XIV's time, Satan was already at work in the Catholic Church. Most of the 19th and 20th century popes had to defend the Church. Pope Leo XIII is just one example. Even the defenders of the true Faith couldn't stop the apostasy of Vatican II and the Rise of the Novus Ordo church.

Latinis potius literis erudiantur, quam ut facultas concedatur, adhibendi in Missae celebratione vulgarem linguam.

- Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), De Missa Sacrificio, 1.2, c. 2. n. 14

On 92: "Latinis ... quam... vulgarem linguam"

Thanks, Joansknight, for providing the quote. Yes, it does imply a move of some kind toward a use of the vernaculars instead of Latin, so I was wrong about that being improbable. I take it that heʻs saying their training (erudiantur) should be in written Latin (Latinis literis). (Iʻm assuming that the subject of "erudiantur" is those who are
training for the priesthood.

To me, though, it only means that, if there was such a move, certain of the Vaticanʻs policy makers were ahead of their time. If they were getting any supernatural guidance, I would think it more likely that God, not Satan was guiding them, and that they were ahead of their time.

>93 rolandperkins:: Trust me....the forces of evil were at hand.

Check this out members of Novus Ordo church: http://fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

Papal Oath alleged 1 to have been taken by
Popes since at least A.D. 681, except by
Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI




Attributed to His Holiness Pope St. Agatho

I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear;

To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture. (Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, Patrologia Latina 1005, S. 54)


Footnote:
1 The "alleged" stems from the fact that the accuracy of this particular form of the oath is under question. It is so that Popes up to John Paul I took a papal oath, but the form of the oath is uncertain. The form above is the one most often presented as the traditional oath, but its accuracy is uncertain. This oath is cited in the book "The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church" (link will open in new browser window), written by Dr. Thomas Woods and Christopher Ferrara. An e-mail exchange with Dr. Woods, wherein I asked him about his sources, led to nothing authoritative. In other words, though you should be familiar with the above form of the oath because it is often seen in traditionalist circles, take it with a grain of salt.

Galatians 2:11 "Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam in faciem ei restiti quia reprehensibilis erat"

>91 Joansknight:

In Jesus of Nazareth's time, Satan was already at work in the Catholic Church.

Were there really 19th and 20th century pontiffs who didn't have to defend the Catholic Church? Why just "most"?

>98 cjbanning:: Satan has been at work since the dawn of time.

All popes throughout Church history, in one way form or another, had defended the Faith. Pius XII. the Church's last pope, was also the last to defend the Faith.

I was merely pointing out Leo XIII and Benedict XIV.

19th & 20th century popes not only defended the doctrines of Christ's Church, they foresaw the apostasy to come....

Satan has closed the eyes of those who believe they are Catholic. Only in Christ will they be able to see the Truth. Only the Truth will they find their salvation.

If they continue to follow Satan they will find damnation.

>99 Joansknight:

If Satan has truly "closed the eyes of those who believe they are Catholic" (surely not everyone who believes they are Catholic, right? you believe you are Catholic. after all) then how can they be held responsible for their actions?

>99 Joansknight:,100 Joanskinght, you believe you are Catholic, I believe I am Catholic. How do we know which one of us has had our eyes closed by Satan?

>100 cjbanning:: Ignorance is not an excuse.

>101 John5918:: The ones who follow the Novus Ordo church....their eyes are closed, because they reject Catholic doctrine and Christ's Church.

Joansknight is a schismatic...what Joansknight (and Br. Diamond) does with Catholic Tradition is what Protestants do with the bible. They quote it OUT OF CONTEXT and then proceed to give it an eisgesis interpretation to the texts of the Catholic Church. They are leading people astray with their false interpretations. They proceed to reject the legitimate authority of the authentically elected Roman Pontiff and pridefully believe that their own PERSONAL INTERPRETATION is better than the TRUE POPE'S (the ROCK of the Church FOREVER) interpretation. Schismatics have been around since the beginning of the Church, and I have a feeling they will be around until the second coming. I wish to make the Church in MY OWN IMAGE...NOT IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. I will NOT RECEIVE HIS REVELATION IF I DON'T LIKE IT.

I do agree that the reforms of the liturgy after Vatican II were a mess (and very bad) and not as I would have wished them to be, but it did NOT contradict anything in the deposit of faith! The how's of the liturgy are matters of DISCIPLINE and they are NOT DOGMATIC...I repeat that the how's of the liturgy are discipline and not dogma, do i prefer the Latin Mass...YES!...but I am not so arrogant to assert that therefore the Catholic Church is no longer the Catholic Church. If I were to do that...as Joansknight and his fellow schismatics Br. Diamond do...I would be calling Jesus a liar and not believe in the Sacred Scriptures that say in Matthew 16 that the "Gates of Hell will NEVER prevail against the Catholic Church. But in reality that is what Joansknight is saying and leading others to believe. Also Joansknight would do well to read the text's of Vatican I (held in the 19th century) which talks about the authority and INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF, funny how "the true catholics" reject those aspects of tradition which don't match their personal beliefs...HMM SOUNDS LIKE A PROTESTANT DOESN'T IT? So if the Pope is Infallible on matters of FAITH AND MORALS, how could the Roman Pontiff lead others into error on matters of FAITH??? Oh wait who is being duped my Satan now? Satan CAN NOT destroy the Catholic Church from the inside OR Jesus is a liar. Repent and believe in the gospel and let us join forces against the true enemies of God those dissenting heterodox "Catholics" who are still leading so many astray in the Church today.

>104 campusdan:: You had better get your facts straight my friend. For one thing I never said anything against papal infallibility and if had only read any of my other posts you would know I have read Vatican I documents....more then you have I assure you.

I also never said the Catholic Church didn't exist, the Novus Ordo church just isn't it.

I am not going to repeat myself just for your sake. You think Vatican II just created a mess? I assure you I am not the one astray.

Schismatics have been around since the beginning of the Church, and I have a feeling they will be around until the second coming....you are right about that at least and you are one of them.

The judgment of God may be compared to a mirror. It is not the mirror's fault if the face it reflects is hideous.

- St. Jerome

Classic arrogance of a schismatic...the fruits of schism: ARROGANCE and IGNORANCE (Ignorance blinded by arrogance)...you bet you have read more than me on Vatican I...ok...you have NO IDEA if I have or haven't but you just ASSUME that you are correct without any justification for your judgement...much like your theological opinions of church teachings. Tell me JudasKnight where in the 1917 code of canon law does it state that the a lay person can usurp the authority of the validly elected Roman Pontiff? OR where does it state that if the Pope falls into error (oh wait a minute I just contradicted Vatican I) that a member of the church can pass correct judgement on him (i.e. that the Pope is in error)?...or are you just going to say that your interpretation of the church's teachings are better and more accurate than the Pope? OR that by some kind of conspiracy theory that has no actual historical data that some False Pope was elected instead...wait a minute then Jesus is a lair in Matthew chapter 16, OH MY GOSH!

I love how you dodge all my arguments in my previous post and just assume your opinion is correct without any justification...classic arrogance of a schismatic.

"The whole question therefore is, whether schism be not an evil work, or whether you have not caused schism, so that your resistance of the powers that be is in a good cause and not in an evil work, whereby you would bring judgment on yourselves. Wherefore with infinite wisdom the Lord not merely said, "Blessed are they who are persecuted," but added, "for righteousness' sake." Matthew 5:10 I desire therefore to know from you, in the light of what I have said above, whether it be a work of righteousness to originate and perpetuate your state of separation from the Church. I desire also to know whether it be not rather a work of unrighteousness to condemn unheard the whole Christian world, either because it has not heard what you have heard, or because no proof has been furnished to it of charges which were rashly believed, or without sufficient evidence advanced by you..." ~ St. Augustine

You would do better to remove the plank from your own eye before removing the splinter in your brothers.

Come back home to the fold of the Catholic Church my friend and do not persist in your unbelief but believe!

So let me get this straight you recognize Pope Pius XII then as authentic?

This work is remarkable at once for the richness and exactness of its doctrine, and for the elegance of its style; it is a precious summary of all theology, both dogmatic and moral.

- Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), on the Catechism of the Council of Trent

On 107-108:

This "authenticity" debate came up in an earlier thread, which I began following some weeks ago, and am now following this one off and on.
So, although Joansknight in 108 doesnʻt seem to have answered your question (107) I can assure you that
Joansknight definitely DOES recognize Pius XII as authentic, and is quesitoning the authenticiy of the last 5 popes -- in fact not questioning but just plain asserting that they are not authentic!

>109 rolandperkins:: Thank you.

St. John Chrysostom ( c. 380): “Then (in the Old Covenant) it sufficed for salvation to know God alone. Now it is no longer so; the knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation…”

When you are before the altar where Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are amongst men, but believe that there are troops of angels and archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration.

- St. John Chrysostom

Pope Gregory XVI (1832):”…it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain 'restoration and regeneration' for her the Church as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune."(Mirari Vos #10)

Pope Gregory XVI (1832):”…it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain 'restoration and regeneration' for her the Church as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune."(Mirari Vos #10)

The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of Antichrist, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel "And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice" (Daniel 8:12).

- Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (1696-1787)

>115 Joansknight: Not sure of the relevance of this, as the world has not been deprived of the Mass. It's alive and well. Unless you relate it to the shortage of priests which is regularly depriving people of the Mass in many parts of the world and which is why some bishops are challenging things like the discipline of compulsory celibacy for priests. The Mass is more important than a particular Church discipline.

Alright...Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis states that, "We think how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life" (par. 64)...further more in (par.40) "But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His mystical body in a visible and normal way through His vicar on earth...Since He was all-wise, He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head...That Christ and His vicar constitute the one and only Head is the solemn teaching of our predecessor of immortal memory, Boniface VIII, in the apostolic letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same."

These words by Pope Pius XII were also further reflections of the decrees of Vatican I, which talks in depth on the indefectablitiy of the Catholic Church (which is not only the faithful but the faithful and visible structure of the hierarchy as well)

Also Pope Pius XII sent a VERY IMPORTANT http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm#a2 letter to an archbishop in boston in 1949 (Letter of the Holy Office aka Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Archbishop of Boston)...in which he states thus: "To gain eternal salvation it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is required that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit, as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God's will." So therefore Br. Diamond has it wrong on this big time and others who believe in this perversion of Catholic dogma. Most of these schismatic beliefs are erroneous interpretations of Catholic dogma.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical letter, Humani Generis, 1950 states that: "The task of interpreting the deposit i.e. deposit of faith authentically was entrusted by our divine Redeemer not to the individual Christian, nor even to the theologians, but ONLY to the Church's teaching authority." Which then leads to the question of "if the visible head of the church on earth is missing how can their be proper interpretation of Catholic doctrine?" Does it say anywhere in the 1917 code of canon law that if the Pope ceases to be Pope that individual Catholic's can then assume the office of authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition? I don't remember reading that anywhere in catholic tradition.

So we would be wise to be humble before God and His Church and give assent to their authority in mind and intellect.

"DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE DECEIVED BY THE CUNNING STATEMENTS OF THOSE WHO PERSISTENTLY CLAIM TO WISH TO BE WITH THE CHURCH, TO LOVE THE CHURCH, TO FIGHT SO THAT PEOPLE DO NOT LEAVE HER...BUT JUDGE THEM BY THEIR WORKS. IF THEY DESPISE THE SHEPHERDS OF THE CHURCH AND EVEN THE POPE, IF THEY ATTEMPT ALL MEANS OF EVADING THEIR AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO ELUDE THEIR DIRECTIVES AND JUDGMENTS...,THEN ABOUT WHICH CHURCH DO THESE MEN MEAN TO SPEAK? CERTAINLY NOT ABOUT THE ONE "BUILT UPON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF BEING THE CORNERSTONE" (EPHESIANS 2:20). ~POPE PIUS X (MAY 10, 1909)

117: "Since (God) was all-wise, (God) could not leave the body of the Church (God) had founded as a human society without a visible head"

Doesn't sedevacntism teach that after Vatican II the Church was indeed left without a visible head? How is that possible if an all-wise God would not allow it?

"We think how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible"

I agree with this. The one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ subsists in the apostolic churches as governed by the historic episcopate. The many elements of truth and sanctification found outside those structures compel towards catholic unity under apostolic authority.

The Church is recognizable by the four elements of the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral: the Bible, the creeds, the sacraments, and the historic episcopate.

The Church is an institution. Furthermore, it is an institution which, while currently fragmented, strives for unity and catholicity--and every Catholic, be they Roman or Anglo- (or sedevacantist?), prays for the eventual restoration of unity to the Church even as we recognize the deeper, more fundamental unity and catholicity of the Body of Christ can never be broken. While "the Church may have fallen into schism within itself and its several provinces or groups of provinces be out of communion with each other, each may yet be a branch of the one Church of Christ, provided that it continues to hold the faith of the original undivided Church and to maintain the Apostolic Succession of its bishops" (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, as quoted in Wikipedia). Questioning the institutionality of the Church would be, to me, something akin to questioning whether the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally begotten from the First (not that questioning anything should ever be out of bounds!). Most fundamentally, I eschew the individualist impulse of Protestantism which places the piety of the single believer above the sacramental life of the community.

Yes CJ...I am trying to demonstrate how ridiculous "joansknight" aka judasknight's opinions and insights really are by quoting Church documents which contradict his completely erroneous interpretations of Church teachings. He stated that he believes that Pope Pius XII was a real Pope and then I quote Pope Pius saying that the Church can not exist without it's visible head (or in the case of an interregnum the one who has been appointed temporary authority until the valid election of the new Roman Pontiff) the Pope and if one claims this they can't be fully Catholic much less apostolic.

Although the quadrilateral commission you are talking about only pertains to Anglican/Episcopal communities in particular and not to Roman Catholic Churches in general since the governing bodies are distinct from one another.

Let us continue the dialogue toward Christian unity!

119: "Although the quadrilateral commission you are talking about only pertains to Anglican/Episcopal communities in particular and not to Roman Catholic Churches in general since the governing bodies are distinct from one another."

This isn't quite right. The 1886 U.S. House of Bishops and the 1888 Lambeth Conference were not merely making statements about Anglican praxis, but putting forth an ecclesiology normative to the entire Church catholic (in the same way that the first and second Vatican Councils made statements on the nature of Protestant ecclesial communities). Now whether or not it is the correct ecclesiology is of course a live question, and the authority of the statements would not exist for someone who is not an Anglican (and, Anglicans being Anglicans, is not absolute even for someone who is) but I don't think there's anything in there for a Roman Catholic to actually disagree with; RCC doctrine clearly agrees with Anglican doctrine that the Bible, the creeds, the sacraments, and the episcopate are all visible signs of the unity, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Christian Church.

Now, where a Roman would enter into disagreement would be on two points: the validity of Anglican apostolic succession, and the requirement (alongside the four shared ones given above) of united governance under soi-disant "Petrine" authority.

At the end of the day, it is of course true that Joanasknight and I (and, presumably, MyopicBookworm) are in agreement that the current claimant to the See of Rome is not actually the supreme governor of the Christian Church. Where we disagree lies rather in whether his (i.e., Benedict XVI/Ratzinger's) claim to the Roman See is itself invalid, as well as Roman Catholic (and, of course, Anglican) apostolic authority in general.

But I absolutely agree that if one assumes the validity of Vatican I and certain portions of Trent which would I would probably ignore (despite my love for that particular Council in general), the sedevacantist position is invalid. I think I lost track of who was saying what and assumed portions of your post were actually posted by Joan. Oops?

“I am the way and the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6). Without the way there is no going; without the truth there is no knowing; without the life there is no living… I am the way inviolable, the truth infallible, and the life interminable.” (Imitation of Christ, p. 311)

Joansnight, does Sedevacantism have any bishops? Priests? Were they ordained before Vatican II? Were they appointed under the regime of what you call "true" popes, before the advent of your five "anti-popes"? If you consider yourselves to be the one true Church, how do you govern yourself? Where does the teaching, governing and sanctifying authority reside?

With Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.

>123 Joansknight: Yes, I was expecting that answer. But what is the Church governance structure here on earth? If you remember, the one true Catholic Church up until it became untrue around the time of John XXIII or Vatican II did have a structure.

Where is it written that the Church needs a governance structure to exist? If there is no authentic structure of the Church What are the true followers of Christ to do? You place more authority in men, NOT in Christ. There are bishops and priests in the Catholic Church who were properly consecrated and can celebrate the mass validly. Is not the celebration and remembrance of Christ's passion the most important aspect of His Church?

The Chair of Peter has been empty though since 1958. That doesn't mean Christ's Church vanished.

>125 Joansknight: Yes, but I'm asking you to describe to me what you have got. You say, there are bishops and priests who were properly consecrated and can celebrate the mass validly. I asked whether they were ordained before 1958. If not, who is ordaining them now? Ordination is part of a structure and implies that somebody has authority both to select and ordain. How is that done?

The Rite of Consecration (its form) for priests and bishops was changed in 1968.

>127 Joansknight: That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about your bishops and priests.

They are NOT my bishops and priests....they are the Catholic Church's. They were consecrated through Apostolic Succession. Do I need to explain that also?

>129 Joansknight: Yes, it would be helpful to understand more how you still have bishops and priests being consecrated through Apostolic Succession. A bit like the Anglican Church, perhaps? Valid but not licit according to Canon Law, perhaps? What is the (earthly) authority which selects and ordains them? Does your Church have a "head office", so to speak, like ours does in the Vatican? Do you have Canon Law? You must have made a lot of changes to the traditional (pre-1958 or pre-Vatican II) Church set-up in order to function without a pope. But I thought you were against changes in the Church. Any contradictions there?

My head is spinning and I need some Tylenol.

>131 Joansknight:
Why? All he's asking for is some basic chronological description. Given the stakes that you ascribe to these events, is that really asking for so much?

Could you please inform us?

>29 Joansknight:...Yes but St. Athanasius doesn't and hasn't gone against the Bishop of Rome...and you and your kind have! The only way we know that St. Athanasius was Orthodox was because Rome recognized him as such.

>35 timspalding:...Tim excellent point here...if their reasoning is so off the wall as to deny the holocaust and it's facts how can they be clear on the matters of faith that are trying to explain in which Judasknight talks about in >37 Joansknight:?

>46 Joansknight:...Judasknight do YOU believe in Christ?...If so why not believe the words He speaks in Matthew 16? And it's interpretation by the authentic interpreters of tradition:

Pope Leo XIII Satis Cognitum

l) Jesus Christ, therefore, appointed Peter to be that head of the Church; and HE ALSO DETERMINED THAT THE AUTHORITY INSTITUTED IN PERPETUITY for the salvation of all should be inherited by His successors, in whom the same PERMANENT authority of Peter himself should continue.

m) From this text it is clear that by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter, just as a building rests on its foundation….REMOVE IT AND THE WHOLE BUILDING FALLS. It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity… The words - and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it - proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak.

n) "For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built 'His house upon a rock,' cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it"

How come you never respond to my postings Judasknight?

>66 Joansknight:...well Judasknight I have to agree a little with you here...I too have attended Novus Ordo masses for about 12 years and find many of the same problems that you have encountered. But then I found faithful priests and good parishes with good and reverent liturgies. Usually in parishes that celebrate the Novus Ordo and the TLM. I just attended a newly ordained priest's two first Masses one TLM and one Novus Ordo and when celebrated according the to RUBRICS and with the Spirit of continuity between reforms it is much closer than one would think. But the real problem lies with Bishops not enforcing the liturgical laws set forth by Roman and many modernist priests make their own awful liturgies that can sometimes be invaild and most times illict. But these awful heretics are not following Roman they are hijacking the mass, by themselves, in certain cases and getting away with it. Most modernists that I have encountered are very very sly and lie and conceal their heretic ways but Roman is getting wind and more and more Bishops are not standing for these modernists heretics any longer, their days are numbered mark my words.

>75 Joansknight:...Judasknight you are more Protestant than John here buddy. You continue to place your own private interpretation of Catholic Traditional texts at odds with the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops. Whereas, myself and John give holy obedience to the Rock of the One Church of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI.

> 95...Check this out members of schismatic sedevacantist "church": http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea1.asp

Oh and this too: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp

>135 campusdan:: Because you are mean spirited, rude, hateful and un-Christian.

>139 Joansknight:...Ok point well taken but you are guilty of the same sins as I will demonstrate...REMEMBER as St. Thomas says don't look at the arguer but at the argument...by the way my style of polemic is much milder than that of St. Jerome and I don't see you having problems with him.

Just because I don't express myself in a "meek" way doesn't therefore refute my arguments...You have just put forth what is called an Ad Homien logical fallacy. This means that you attack me personally instead of actually attacking my argument(s) that is put forth.
You believe that by showing that I have some personal flaw that somehow means that my arguments are false...which is a logical fallacy and therefore FALSE!
Whereas, I have attacked your argument and you at the same time. You on the other hand have only attacked me personally.

At least I have the decency to attack your argument whereas you are so un-Christian as to only attack me personally with comment >139 Joansknight:.

Also what about YOUR comments, let me refresh your memory:

>10 Joansknight:: I hate to correct you again Book Worm, but, St Athanasius and St Antony of Egypt lived prior to 1054 AD when the Orthodox church broke away from Rome. They are referring to those after the break with Rome. Please know your facts before you comment or judge. (Sounds pretty arrogant of you here bud and insulting)

>21 Joansknight:: >20 MyopicBookworm:: So you do not believe in the Immaculate Conception either? You should be a Protestant. (Wow how insulting is this statement that YOU made to the person you made it to and to Protestants)

>26 Joansknight:: >25 cjbanning:: Why would Anglicans believe in that doctrine? They are Protestants and heretics. (Wow this is insulting and contradicts Canon Law)

>49 Joansknight:: >48 John5918:: You also live by the doctrine of man. Saying words is easy....living by them is another thing.
Man, NOT Christ is the center of your mass....(Wow this is pretty arrogant and insulting to those who attend the Novus Ordo Mass and also it is funny to me how your responses are as if each of the people that attend the Novus Ordo are behind it all too as if they are actively assenting to some heresy that you say exists, also the tone is very arrogant)

>69 Joansknight:: >68 cjbanning:: That sounds exactly like something in our over sexualized society would say. (Hmmm sounds pretty Gnostic of you eh?... and pretty insulting to the other person you are addressing, essentially calling them not christian because they don't agree with you)

>103 Joansknight:: >101 John5918:: The ones who follow the Novus Ordo church....their eyes are closed, because they reject Catholic doctrine and Christ's Church. (Wow another insult from YOU)

And one of my favorites that you posted directly to me is comment 105 where you say to me:

The judgment of God may be compared to a mirror. It is not the mirror's fault if the face it reflects is hideous.

- St. Jerome

Here you attacked me personally whereas you have here again...remove the plank bud!

And upon further thought I have not spoken anything that is not truth your arrogance is clearly demonstrated by your own words and am merely calling you out on it and that according to scripture is Charitable and not sinful.

I Dare you Judasknight try and refute my arguments...can you?

Much as I disagree with the faction upheld by
Joansknight, I very much dislike the change of her/his name (140). I donʻt think your infliction of this parody name, campusdan, is warranted, or within the rules of polite LT argument.

>141 rolandperkins:...That is fine point you are making Roland...I will here on out refer to said person as Jknight.

>141 rolandperkins: Agreed

Thanks for your acknowledgement, campusdan (142)

The early Catholics by the world of their day were dubbed haters of mankind. The same charge will be levelled at a modern Catholic of conviction by the world of his day. People cannot be comfortable in contact with such hard, angular, unsociable, uncompromising individuals. So the world felt extremely ill at ease in the presence of Christ - and after a few years contact He was found unbearable. Life for the nation and for its heads was impossible unless He were put out of the way. It was expedient that (this) One Man should die that the whole nation should perish not. It is certainly easier to be on the side of the world.

- Father Edward Leen, C.S.SP. (1885-1944)

6. The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic
would cease to be pope, and that a heretic
couldn’t be validly elected pope
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “The pope
himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope
because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”1
Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic
Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the
Catholic Church is a heretic.
Martin Luther, perhaps the most notorious heretic in Church history, taught the heresy of
Justification by faith alone, among many others
Besides antipopes reigning from Rome due to uncanonical elections, the Catholic Church teaches
that if a pope were to become a heretic he would automatically lose his office and cease to be the
pope. This is the teaching of all the doctors and fathers of the Church who addressed the issue:
A heretic cannot be the pope 32
That a heretic cannot be a pope is rooted in the dogma that heretics
are not members of the Catholic Church
It should be noted that the teaching from the saints and doctors of the Church, which is quoted
above – that a pope who became a heretic would automatically cease to be pope – is rooted in the
infallible dogma that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics,
cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for
the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their
lives…”2
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man
from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”3
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and
head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all
the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as
Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of
what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the
Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St.
Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De
great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the
manifest heretic cannot be Pope."
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp.
305-306: "Now when he the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from
his dignity and out of the Church..."
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he
would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated
from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains
separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be
separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to
be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since
he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa
Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
A heretic cannot be the pope 33
We can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a man is severed from the Church by
heresy, schism or apostasy.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous
teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and
alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of
doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”4
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself
as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are
not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a
Catholic.”5
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics,
but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no
one is saved.”6
Thus, it’s not merely the opinion of certain saints and doctors of the Church that a heretic would
cease to be pope; it’s a fact inextricably bound up with a dogmatic teaching. A truth inextricably
bound up with a dogma is called a dogmatic fact. It is, therefore, a dogmatic fact that a heretic
cannot be the pope. A heretic cannot be the pope, since one who is outside cannot head that of
which he is not even a member.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is
absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”7
(Pope Paul IV)
Pope Paul IV issued a Papal Bull solemnly declaring that the
election of a heretic as pope is null and void
In 1559 Pope Paul IV issued an entire Papal Bull dealing with the subject and the
possibility of a heretic being elected pope.
A heretic cannot be the pope 34
At the time that Paul IV issued the Bull (quoted below) there were rumors that one of the
cardinals was a secret Protestant. In order to prevent the election of such a heretic to the Papacy,
Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that a heretic cannot be validly elected pope. Below are the
pertinent portions of the Bull. For the entire Bull, see our website.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1… Remembering also that,
where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We
have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular
jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into
perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule,
either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it
may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which
was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view
of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God,
We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of
the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be
dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and
be compared with the hireling…
6. In addition, by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact,
determine, decree and define:- that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop,
even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the
aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the
Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff,
has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the
unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus
acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent
authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative
enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all,
nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need
for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and
power…
10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, reintroduction,
sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash
presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him
know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles,
Peter and Paul.
Given in Rome at Saint Peter's in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th
February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.
+ I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”
With the fullness of his papal authority, Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a heretic is
invalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals and is accepted by all.
A heretic cannot be the pope 35
Pope Paul IV also declared that he was making this declaration in order to combat the arrival of
the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the holy place. This is astounding, and
it seems to indicate that the Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the
abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing as the pope
– perhaps because the heretic posing as the pope will give us the abomination of desolation in the
holy place (the New Mass), as we believe is the case, or because the heretical antipope will
himself constitute the abomination of desolation in the holy place.
The Catholic Encyclopedia repeats this truth declared by Pope Paul IV by asserting that the election
of a heretic as pope would, of course, be completely null and void.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p.
456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female
as Pope would be null and void."8
In line with the truth that a heretic cannot be the pope, the
Church teaches that heretics cannot be prayed for in the
canon of the Mass
A pope is prayed for in the Te Igitur prayer of the canon of the Mass. But the Church also teaches
that heretics cannot be prayed for in the canon of the Mass. If a heretic could be a true pope,
there would be an insoluble dilemma. But it’s actually not a dilemma because a heretic cannot be
a valid pope:
Libellus professionis fidei, April 2, 517, profession of faith prescribed under Pope St.
Hormisdas: “And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with
you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true solidity
of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated
from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the
Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in
any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion
with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this
profession of mine, and to you, HORMISDAS, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of
Rome, I have directed it.”9
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 23), March 1, 1756:
“Moreover heretics and schismatics are subject to the censure of major excommunication by
the law of Can. de Ligu. 23, quest. 5, and Can. Nulli, 5, dist. 19. But the sacred canons of the
Church forbid public prayer for the excommunicated as can be seen in chap. A nobis,
2, and chap. Sacris on the sentence of excommunication. Though this does not forbid
prayer for their conversion, still such prayer must not take the form of proclaiming
their names in the solemn prayer during the sacrifice of the Mass.”10
A heretic cannot be the pope 36
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 9), January 6, 1873:
“For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared – and the entire
Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later – ‘that the names of those who were separated
from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all
matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries.’”11
Endnotes for Section 6:
1 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heresy,” New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261.
2 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 578;
Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 714.
3 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 41.
4 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.
5 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 393.
6 Denzinger 423.
7 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 401.
8 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456.
9 Denzinger 172.
10 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 84.
11 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 415.

My thoughts are the same as those of the Catholic Church and are expressed more clearly by the Fathers of the Catholic Church.

>146 Joansknight: But you and a few other private individuals interpret those "thoughts" in one way, while the vast body of the Church, including its bishops and popes, interprets them in another way. I'm still trying to understand what makes you right and the legitimate teaching authorities within the Church wrong in this interpretation of the thoughts of the Fathers of the Catholic Church. As yet you have not been able to answer that, only to give more quotes (which in themselves are not in dispute) and to assert (on what authority?) that Satan has deceived everybody except yourself and the owners of the websites where you get your quotes.

It is taking me awhile to respond because I am cross checking your quotations and it is taking very long to find them because they are wrong...more on this tomorrow I hope to get something posted...and I promise it will not disappoint:)
Meanwhile Jknight you should respond to John.

I couldn't help myself...just a taste of what is to come...Ok Jknight how do all those quotes NOT contradict The Dogma of Papal Infallibility defined at Vatican I in the 19th century Pre-Vatican II Church? It seems that if your (and your kind) interpretation is correct then you are in a logical contradiction in matters of faith about the nature of The Church. Can authentic catholic tradition contradict authentic catholic tradition? Can truth contradict truth? Can an Infallible Pope commit/teach a Heresy? Ok, I am done for now...more to come later ;)

>148 campusdan:: It appears to me, Dan, that I have a better appreciation and knowledge of Church doctrine then you if you have to question their authenticity.

By the way, we all know it is your intent to refer to me as "Judas". As Christ knows what is in your heart you may as well continue to proclaim me "Judas" so that my calling you un-Christian will be justified by all.

And my questions in post >147 John5918:?

Catholicism for Dummies Exposed



Brother Michael Dimond



An examination and exposé of the heretical best-selling book, Catholicism for Dummies, by “Reverend” John Trigilio and “Reverend” Kenneth Brighenti



While it’s true that the book Catholicism for Dummies contains some true statements and facts concerning what the Catholic Church teaches, it’s also true that many statements in the book constitute heresy and apostasy. So, if after reading this article you still believe the book is completely Catholic, you are simply a dummy. You have deceived yourself into thinking it teaches Catholicism. Please note that one of the authors, “Fr.” John Trigilio, is actually a featured speaker for EWTN. He even hosted their show defending Vatican II. It was called “Council of Faith.” He is currently featured on two special programs produced by EWTN. Trigilio’s book Catholicism for Dummies has also received numerous recommendations from well-known Vatican II “Catholics.”



Novus Ordo “apologist” Jimmy Akin said the following about Catholicism for Dummies: “… the only secular ‘For Numskulls’-type book on Catholicism that I can recommend. I have read others on the market, published under other ‘For Numskulls’-type imprints, and the ones that I have read are all deficient, ranging from somewhat to seriously so. I was so impressed with Catholicism For Dummies, however, that I recommended it to Catholic Answers to carry.” Catholic Answers took his advice and now sells it. Catholic Answers describes the book in this way: “Catholicism for Dummies presents the rich tapestry and history of the Catholic Church – from devotions to doctrines. You’ll find within these pages everything you wanted to know about the Catholic Faith.” The book Catholicism for Dummies has also been promoted by many others including Michael S. Rose and Professor Charles Rice. Rice described it as “A gold mine of insight on the Catholic faith for people of all ages and beliefs.” No, this book is only a gold mine of heresy and apostasy, as we will see. I will now give examples of where the book teaches heresy.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 186: “The Church believes that you’re being irreligious when you show contempt for God, such as by desecrating a holy object or place. The action is called a sacrilege. When a house of worship - a church, temple, synagogue, or mosque – is vandalized, the Church maintains that the sin of sacrilege has been committed; a house of God was desecrated, and contempt was shown not solely for those who attend the house’s services but also and preeminently for the person the place was built for. You’re also violating the Second Commandment if you make jokes, watch movies, or read books that are disrespectful to God or anything considered holy. So, for example, if you ridicule or laugh at a Jewish man for wearing a yarmulke (skull cap), a Muslim woman for wearing a khimar (head covering), a nun for wearing her religious habit, or a priest for wearing a cassock (a long close-fitting garment, usually black), you’re being sacrilegious. Human beings wear certain things out of religious tradition, or they perform certain rituals as an external way of showing their love for God. When others make fun of religious garb or religious practices, it is an insult to the one being remembered by them, God himself.” (Wiley Publishing Inc. 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ.)



This paragraph would rank high among the most heretical paragraphs ever written by a person who claims to be Catholic. They say it is a sacrilege when a synagogue or mosque is desecrated. They state that these places are holy, and that when these places are desecrated contempt for God is shown. This is amazingly heretical. They go on to teach the incredible heresy that if you show contempt for Jews or Muslims for wearing their religious clothing you are insulting God and violating the second commandment. They obviously believe that to be a religious Jew or Muslim is the same thing as being a religious Catholic; otherwise they would never say what they stated above. This clearly indicates that the false religions of Judaism and Islam are good and true. Here’s what the Catholic Church thinks about these religions:



Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434: “… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”



Pope Callixtus III: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet Islam in the East.”



Pope Benedict XIV, A Quo Primum, June 14, 1751: "Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth."



Let’s look at the next example of heresy in the book:



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 9: “To Catholics, all people are basically good…”



Catholics do not consider all people as basically good. All men (outside Our Lady) are born in a state of original sin and Jesus states that most men go to Hell. (Matthew 7:13). The idea that all men are basically good is a bold expression of religious indifferentism, moral relativism and it implies universal salvation.



Catholicism for Dummies, Introduction page 1: “Three great religions trace their roots to the prophet Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And one of those great religions, Christianity, is expressed in three great traditions: Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.”



They state that Judaism and Islam are great religions and that Protestantism and Eastern “Orthodoxy” are great Christian traditions. This is totally heretical. Some might argue that the term “great,” even though it frequently means good, can also mean “numerically large.” Since it can carry the meaning of “good,” a Catholic must not use such a word to describe a false religion, unless it’s made clear in the context that the religion is false but simply stands out in history. Of course, the authors of Catholicism for Dummies don’t teach that these religions are false and evil. On the contrary, their entire book constitutes proof that they regard these false religions as good. As it stands, their statement is heretical and an expression of false ecumenism.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 11: “The practice of attending what’s called the Vigil Mass, the Saturday evening Mass, wasn’t universally allowed until 1983. The rationale for this relatively new practice is that in the Jewish tradition after sundown means the next calendar day, so Mass celebrated after sundown on Saturday evening can count for a Sunday obligation.”



Throughout its history, the Catholic Church has only considered Sunday attendance sufficient for the weekly holy day of obligation. However, in 1983 this was changed by the arch-apostate John Paul II. The Catholic Church does not permit any of the observances of the Old Law of Judaism to be religiously followed. Therefore, those who think that Saturday Mass is equal to Sunday for the weekly Mass obligation are following Judaism. The Council of Florence condemned those who followed the religious practices of Judaism.



Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments… after our Lord’s coming… ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began... All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 94: “… Catholicism doubts the Baptisms in the following faith communities to be a valid sacrament: Christian Scientists, Quakers, Salvation Army, Jehovah Witnesses, Unitarians, and Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.) The reason has nothing to do with the religions themselves or their members, because all espouse a true love of God and neighbor. The reason merely has to do with what Catholicism considers to be a valid sacrament.”



The heretical sects they mention here do not espouse a true love of God. Notice how any even mild criticism of a non-Catholic religion is repudiated by the authors. This is consistent with the complete (and often shocking) religious indifferentism seen throughout the book.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 94: “So through Catholic Baptism, a Christian’s immediate spiritual family is God the Father, Jesus, God’s son and a brother to all, and Mary, the Mother of Jesus and a mother to all. And every one who was, is, or ever will be baptized becomes their extended spiritual family. Catholics believe that Baptism makes all people brothers and sisters in Christ, whether they’re Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.”



It’s heretical to teach that by baptism non-Catholics become part of the same spiritual family as Catholics. True Catholics are only united to other Catholics by baptism. To be part of the same spiritual family is to be part of the same Church. This would mean that non-Catholics are part of the true Church. All in the Catholic Church have the same faith and baptism. Non-Catholics do not have the same faith as Catholics and are therefore not part of the same spiritual family.



Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 95: “Even secular science today uses the name Eve to refer to the first human woman – the first homo sapien. We want to mention that avowed atheist scientists from Oxford University in England have identified seven ancestral matriarchal groups from which all Europeans appear to have descended. Every European, according to the study, can trace his evolutionary history back to the seven ancestral mother groups, also referred to as the Seven Daughters of Eve. This corroborates the discovery of biochemists Allan Wilson and Vincent Sarich of the University of California at Berkley who’ve shown that every man and woman on earth, past, present, and future, can be traced genetically to one human woman.”



Here they promote the unscientific and unbiblical theory of evolution.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 99: “The Catholic Church doesn’t see itself as being right and all other religions being wrong… You can think of it like this: Catholicism sees itself more like someone who knows everything about mathematics versus someone who knows only algebra, geometry, or trigonometry. The Church believes that all religions know some truth, but it knows more.”



This is completely wrong. The Catholic Church does see itself as being right and all the other religions as being wrong.



Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (#4), May 24, 1829: “Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”



Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 21-23), June 20, 1888: “Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it… Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 100: “People who lack any knowledge of Christ and his teachings are sometimes called anonymous Christians, and they don’t consciously, deliberately, and willingly reject Christ and his Catholic Church, so they aren’t responsible for not knowing the whole truth. Therefore, the Church believes in Baptism by desire, which allows salvation for non-Christians who, through no fault of their own, haven’t yet accepted Christ explicitly but nonetheless live good, moral lives as if already Christian. Only those who consciously, deliberately, and willingly reject Christ are considered liable.”



There is no such thing as an anonymous Christian. In this statement they manifest a complete denial of the necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation.



Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 114: “… getting married in the Catholic Church isn’t as complicated as some may think. At least one person must be Catholic, but the other person can be any other religion. If the non-Catholic was baptized in a non-Catholic church, the non-Catholic needs documentation verifying Baptism. If the non-Catholic is unbaptized, unchurched, or of a non-Christian religion, a special dispensation from the local bishop is needed. The priest or deacon doing the ceremony can obtain it.”



Historically, the Catholic Church allowed a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic only on rare occasions. The non-Catholic party would have to agree to raise all the children Catholic. The post-Vatican II Counterfeit Church now allows “Catholics” to marry non-Catholics without any dispensation. A dispensation to marry a non-Catholic is now only necessary if the non-Catholic “is unbaptized, unchurched, or of a non-Christian religion.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 115: “A valid Sacrament of Matrimony requires the presence of a priest or deacon, a bride and groom (no same-sex marriages), and two witnesses of any religion… Secular or other writings from other faiths can be read at the wedding reception before grace is prayed and the toast given…”



Here these apostates promote that the witnesses of a marriage can be of any religion whatsoever and that religious writings from different religions can be read at the wedding reception. What apostates!



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 120: “… a nonpracticing Catholic doesn’t realize that a non-Catholic minister can still marry the couple in a non-Catholic ceremony with the Catholic Church’s blessing as long as the couple meets with the priest or the deacon and still fulfills all the same Pre-Cana preparations as everyone else. A dispensation from the local bishop is possible and can allow the bride or groom to be validly married in the eyes of the Church, by a non-Catholic minister, and in a non-Catholic church of the non-Catholic spouse, but the Catholic priest or deacon must fill out the necessary forms, and the couple still has to make the same preparations as other Catholic couples.”



Here they promote the completely novel and heretical idea that a Catholic can marry before a non-Catholic minister and in a non-Catholic Church. This was never allowed in the whole history of the Catholic Church until after Vatican II.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 188: “Just going to a Christian Sunday worship service isn’t good enough. In order for Catholics to satisfy and fulfill the Third Commandment, they must attend a valid Catholic Mass. Going to another denomination for a Sunday worship service is nice, but Catholics must also attend Mass the evening before or sometime during the day on Sunday.”



The heretics state that going to a protestant denomination to fulfill your Sunday obligation “is nice,” but “isn’t good enough” to fulfill your Sunday obligation. Every moral theology manual before Vatican II would tell you that to actively participate in a Protestant service would be a mortal sin.



Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875, speaking of a non-Catholic sect: “They the faithful should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 193: “Catholicism doesn’t teach that married couples must have as many children as biologically possible. It does, however, allow for Natural Family Planning (NFP), which is not the old, archaic, and unreliable rhythm method. So responsible parents can morally decide how large or small a family they can reasonably afford, raise, and maintain, as long as moral means are employed to do so.”



They state that you can decide for yourself how large a family you want.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 204: “Treating all citizens – regardless of gender, color, ethnicity, or religion – with the same dignity and human rights is a mandate of social justice to all governments.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 207: “The person must know that what they’re doing or planning to do is evil and immoral. For example, someone steals a postage stamp, thinking that it’s only worth 50 cents. She knows that it’s sinful, but if she’s unaware that the stamp is rare and actually worth a $1,000.00, she’s not guilty of mortal sin but of venial sin… Venial sins are any that only meet one or two of the conditions needed for a mortal sin but do not fulfill all three at the same time, or they’re minor violations of the moral law, such as giving an obscene gesture to another driver while in traffic.”



To steal something that is only worth a small amount of money is a mortal sin, not a venial sin.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 215: “Most religions have some controversial teachings, doctrines, disciplines, and policies that the outside world rejects or misunderstands. A few members may even dislike or oppose some doctrine or other, yet these positions remain part and parcel of the official religion, because at the very core is an obligation to speak the truth “in season and out of season… for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but wanting to have their ears tickled” (2 Timothy 4:2-3) For this reason, the Catholic Church, like other faiths, stands by her convictions and teachings…”



They seem to state that all religions - by adhering to their core teachings, are speaking the truth in season and out of season.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 224: “Women can serve on the parish council and finance committees. They can be readers at Mass, extraordinary ministers (laypersons who assist the priest at Mass to give out Holy Communion) if needed, and ushers. They can work in the parish office, teach religious ed, and so on, just like their male counterparts. And many parishes have women pastoral associates – usually nuns or religious sisters who help the pastor with many spiritual and pastoral duties. In addition women can hold positions of influence and power even in the diocesan chancery. The Church has women who are canon lawyers, judges, and chancellors across the country. The Church has allowed local bishops and pastors the option to permit female altar servers at Mass. Now many parishes have both altar girls and altar boys.”



This is wicked novelty condemned by Catholic teaching.



Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt (#29), July 26, 1755: “Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: ‘Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.’ We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution...”



1 Corinthians 14:34- “Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 234: “The Catholic Church permits and encourages married couples to space births and plan how big or small their family will be. But if artificial contraception is out, what’s in? Definitely not the archaic and undependable rhythm method. That’s not what the Church means by Natural Family Planning (NFP)… By using natural science – taking body temperature, checking body fluids, and using some computations – a woman can determine with 95 percent accuracy when to have sex and not get pregnant… When practiced properly, NFP is as effective as any artificial birth control method. And it’s not difficult to learn. Mother Theresa taught illiterate Indian women from the gutters how to effectively use NFP. In addition, no prescription and no expensive devices are involved, so it’s easy on the budget. Birth control pills, on the other hand, are commodities bought and sold for profit.”



They state that the Catholic Church “encourages” couples to space births and plan how big or small their family will be. They encourage NFP as “effective as any birth control method.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 237: “The Church respects and loves the homosexual the same as it does the heterosexual. Catholicism teaches that the homosexual must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every act or thought of hatred, violence, or persecution toward the homosexual is condemned.”



First, they utter the heresy that the Catholic Church equally respects a homosexual and a heterosexual! Perhaps they should read Romans chapter 1. Then they say that the homo must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. What does treating a homosexual with “sensitivity” and “compassion” mean? A Catholic tells the homosexual in charity that his behavior is unnatural and an abomination before God.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 266: “In all 2,000 years of Church history, only two papal ex cathedra statements have been made.”



This is completely wrong and actually laughable. There have been many more than just two ex cathedra statements in Church history. When we consider that these authors have PhDs, yet demonstrate a profound ignorance of real Catholic teaching, this reveals again how shallow, deceiving and misleading such official degrees can be.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 287: “… the word militant isn’t used in the sense that Catholics are at war with Protestants, Jews, or Muslims. The term militant refers to a spiritual warfare against sin and the devil…. Confirmation makes the faithful Soldiers of Christ, who battle against greed, envy, anger, lust, pride, laziness, and gluttony, as well as prejudice, racism, anti-Semitism…”



They say that Catholics aren’t at spiritual war with Protestants, Jews, or Muslims. We are at spiritual war against these members of false religions because they lead people to Hell. But of course heresy, apostasy and embracing false religions mean nothing to these apostates. They also say that confirmation makes a person a Soldier of Christ to fight against anti-Semitism. We wonder what they mean by this statement. Do they mean that you are not to be a racist or against the Jewish religion (there’s a huge difference between the two, of course) or do they mean both? They probably mean both.



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 288: “… hell isn’t a physical place. It’s as real as heaven or purgatory, but you can’t travel to it anymore than a spaceship can reach heaven.”



Catholicism for Dummies, Page 288: “Catholics believe that purgatory evens the score and fulfills justice while accommodating mercy. They Catholics believe that purgatory isn’t a place but a spiritual state of the soul in which it’s purified before entering heaven. Known as the Church Suffering, the souls in purgatory are definitely and absolutely going to heaven, just not yet. Think of it like this: Joe and Max were both born on the same day and both died on the same day. Joe was a gambler, boozer, and womanizer, and he was dishonest, lazy, and undependable. Max, on the other hand, spent his life obeying the Ten Commandments, practicing virtue, and loving God and neighbor. Just before dying, Joe repents of his old ways and accepts the Lord into his heart. Should Joe and Max both go to heaven at the same time? Catholicism teaches no… both can’t walk through the pearly gates side by side.”



They say that Hell and Purgatory are not actual places. They got this heresy from Antipope John Paul II. In the summer of 1999, he taught that Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are not actual places. It’s revealed in the bible that Heaven and Hell are actual places. They go on to say that two men (of some religion) live different lives. Max loves God and neighbor. Joe was a gambler, boozer and womanizer. Max then dies. Then Joe dies, at the same time. Just before dying, Joe “repents” and attempts to use the Protestant method of accepting the Lord into his heart to save his soul. They conclude by stating that they both go to Heaven, just not at the exact same time. Joe might have to spend a little time in Purgatory. This is heresy.



These few quotes from the book Catholicism for Dummies demonstrate the incredible levels of heresy and apostasy held and promoted by these two authors. These authors are simply men who are able to read and write and obtain degrees. What’s incredible is that Trigilio and Brighenti would probably be considered very conservative among Novus Ordo “priests.” The real problem here is that Trigilio and Brighenti should have never become “priests.” They are utterly of bad will and they are not remotely Catholic. The people who promoted this book are also not Catholic. The mere fact that this book is considered a textbook on what the Catholic Church teaches proves once again that we are living through the final days of the Great Apostasy at the end of the world.

And my post >151 John5918:?

Incidentally I've never read Catholicism for Dummies and didn't even know it existed.

It seems to me, one of JK's often repeated statements is "Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation." And I agree with that. Absolutely.

But can we take some time to draw out what the Church means by that statement?

The Catechism claims all people of goodwill into membership in some capacity. After all, catholic means universal. Full communion designates those baptized and practicing within the traditional framework of the physical Church. Then there is a hierarchy based on the degree of acceptance of what the Church teaches as truth. The first tier, after our Eastern brethren, is Protestants, if I recall correctly. Mother Church does not revile those who have walked away from her, but claims them, whether they want to be claimed or not. I did that with my daughters too, when they were rebellious adolescents.

As a confirmed and practicing Catholic, do I believe all that the Church teaches? I try! I work at it. It is a work in progress.
But my lifetime is not long enough, I'm sure. I defer to the wisdom of 2000 years of study and prayer by much greater saints than myself; I examine and pray over what I fail to understand, and I rest in the assurance that the Church believes FOR ME.

We need to be gracious and welcoming to all people who are seeking Truth, and not close doors by shouting "Heretic." Humility is a cardinal virtue.

>154 2wonderY: Well put, 2wonderY, and I think this is what I mean (in this thread or another? I lose track) by interpretation of doctrine. Doctrine is not a sound bite - it is a deep truth, and deserves to be reflected upon, unpacked, and explored in the light of other doctrines of the Church. I believe this has always been the case with doctrine, and the openness to Jews, other Christians and all people of good will found in Vatican II is a legitimate development, not a rejection, of Church doctrine.

>154 2wonderY:: Very wise remarks, but all people do not belong to the Catholic Church and many even reject the Church and its doctrines. Yes, all are welcomed into the Church, but who ever isn't a member of the Faith does not benefit from its graces.

154: "Mother Church does not revile those who have walked away from her, but claims them, whether they want to be claimed or not."

The vast majority of modern-day Protestants have not walked away from the Church of Rome.

157> But they stay away; which doesn't negate their place in the family.
Have you read Surprised by Truth? It's a very heartwarming set of stories written by modern Protestants who examined and prayed and returned home. Scott Hahn is one of our foremost scholars and theologians now.

156> I give you a 25%. Many do reject the Church and its doctrines. But you are absolutely wrong on the rest of your statement. Those who refuse membership are members nonetheless, in some degree. And so VERY wrong on the last part. The Church is praying blessings down on each and every one of us, PARTICULARLY the seperated. Remember the Shepherd goes after the strayed sheep.

>158 2wonderY:: Heretical doctrines of Vatican II.

Reactionary bullsh...

Do you hear yourself? You are exclusivist and prideful. You are setting yourself up against the accumulated wisdom of the church, its leaders who argued and assented to Vatican II, most of whom were bishops and cardinals prior to 1958.

>160 2wonderY:: That doesn't make Vatican II any more valid. Satan can control the hearts of many.

So what exactly makes it invalid again?

HAHA...thanks again for attacking me personally Jknight in >150 Joansknight:...HAHA this is getting to be funny, so wait a second who is being the uncharitable one here again I am confused...because as John stated earlier we are only getting talked to, and by an arrogant, insulting, illogical, theologically immature person here in Jknight.

By the way J...How come you didn't even try and respond to an actual argument that I put forth in >149 campusdan:?...That is because you are stubborn in your schism and will never humble yourself to the TRUTH!...your personal pride of your own self-fulfilling prophecy (and that of MHFM) you cannot reject for the truth.

Please prove me wrong, but I'm sure all you will continue to do is put forth Ad Hominem (remember this is a logical fallacy) attacks on me OR just cut and paste statements that you clearly demonstrate to have no idea what or how to interpret these texts in a coherent manner. Also you dodge any good argument that is logical and true, you don't respond to it you just quote some random Saint and move on. By the way you never answered/responded to any of the Papal texts and Catechism of the Council of Trent that I quoted in order to so how your interpenetration IS a contradiction, I just assume that you will run away from those too ignoring them as if they don't exist eh?...Ok.

>150 Joansknight:...I never questioned their authenticity...I AM questioning their interpretation. I do believe that they are both authentic but your interpretation of those texts if true is contradictory and therefore FALSE! My argument was quite clear, I am surprised with your superior understanding that you can not follow a simple syllogism and accuse me of something that I never said.

I believe Tim from an earlier post was right that this is probably a big waste of our time. It's like talking to a schism robot and not someone inspired by the Holy Spirit with the Truth. Sorry to break it to you there Jknight but the Truth can not contradict itself and with your arguments and interpretation of catholic tradition IT DOES! So who is the one again blinded by Satan and believing in the doctrines of man? Seems like a no brainer here folks, let us pray for our brother here and those who are ensnared by these evil and schismatic doctrines.

Some good books to expose the errors of Jknight and MHFM are:

More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere

by the way Pete Vere used to believe in the schismatic doctrines that the SSPX (this explained below) believes but was humble enough to admit error and repent.

Another great book is:

The Pope, The Council, and The Mass: Answers to Questions the "Traditionalists" Have Asked by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead

This next text I would tell Catholics to read with caution because it is written by another schismatic group which is in dialogue with the Vatican for reunion. The group is called the Society of St. Pius X or SSPX, although they have beliefs similar to Jknight and the sedevacantists they recognize the illogical and untenable position that the sedevacantists hold and they put forth their own arguments against it (the sedevacantists) here:

Sedevacantism: A False Solution To a Real Problem

Enjoy these texts those who are humble enough to search for the truth.

By the way Jknight I am in possession of publications of MHFM and READ them too, just wanted to preempt an assumption that I know Jknight would be thinking and posting.

#164: Campusdan - I'm marginally interested in this thread but overwhelmed by long screeds which I don't have the time or energy to properly unravel. But I was interested in looking up the texts you mention. The first two links work fine but the last one when clicked brings me back to this thread. I don't think that's what you intended so perhaps you could give another link or just give the authors. Thank you. PS. No offence to the contributors intended but perhaps I need to read a logical reasoned argument.

>162 2wonderY:: For one thing, Vatican II is invalid because John XXIII (which is also the name of another anti-pope) is an anti-pope and a manifest heretic.

>166 Joansknight: But Joansknight, you keep repeating that but with no evidence. At best it is the opinion of yourself and a small group of private individuals with no authority within the Church to make that judgement. Those within the Church who do have the authority to make the judgement come to a different conclusion from you. Lots of people disagree with the Church; that's normal. But for you to claim that you have the authority to speak on behalf of the Church is contradictory.

38. Was Vatican II infallible? If you believe
that Paul VI was a true pope, yes.
“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the
fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the
venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy
Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod council be published to
God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” 1 (Paul VI, solemnly closing
every document of Vatican II)
We have exposed in detail the heresies of Vatican II. We have also shown that the men who
implemented this non-Catholic Council were not true popes of the Catholic Church, but
antipopes. Despite all of the evidence, some people remain unconvinced. They hold that there
are indeed doctrinal problems with Vatican II; but, according to them, this is no problem for Paul
VI because he did not infallibly promulgate any of the Vatican II heresies. “The heresies of
Vatican II don’t matter,” they say, “because Vatican II was not infallible!” We will now show that
if Paul VI had been a true pope, the documents of Vatican II would have been promulgated
infallibly. This will prove, again, that Paul VI (the heretic who promulgated the apostate
documents of Vatican II, changed the rites to all seven sacraments, changed the Mass into a
Protestant service, oversaw the systematic and world-wide dismantling of Catholicism, ruined
the world-wide Catholic school system, and initiated the greatest apostasy from Catholicism in
history) was not and could not have been a true pope. He was an antipope.
There are three conditions that need to be met for a pope to teach infallibly: 1 the pope must
carry out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians; 2 he must teach in accord with his
supreme apostolic authority; and 3 he must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be
believed by the universal Church. If a pope fulfills these conditions, he, through the divine
assistance promised him as successor of Peter, operates infallibly, as the following definition of
Vatican Council I teaches.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, 1 WHEN CARRYING OUT
THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS 2 IN
ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY 3 HE EXPLAINS A
DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS 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 in
defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from
himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone
presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be
anathema.”2
We will now prove, point by point, that Paul VI’s promulgation of the documents of Vatican II
fulfilled all three of these requirements, which would make the documents of Vatican II infallible
if he had been a true pope.
1) A Pope must act as Pastor and teacher of all Christians
The first requirement for a pope to teach infallibly is that he must act as pastor and teacher of all
Christians. If he was the true pope, Paul VI fulfilled this requirement.
Was Vatican II infallible? 470
EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II BEGINS WITH THESE WORDS:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE
FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”3
Pope Eugene IV began the 9th session of the dogmatic Council of Florence with these words:
“Eugene, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record.”4 Pope Julius II
began the 3rd session of the dogmatic 5th Lateran Council with these words: “Julius, bishop,
servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting
record.”5 And Pope Pius IX began the 1st session of the dogmatic First Vatican Council with these
words: “Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council,
for an everlasting record.”6 This is the customary way in which the decrees of
general/dogmatic/ecumenical councils are solemnly begun by popes. Paul VI began every
document of Vatican II in the very same way, with the very same words!
By beginning each document of Vatican II in this way, Paul VI (if he was a true pope) clearly
fulfilled the first requirement to teach infallibly.
2) A Pope must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic
authority
The second requirement for a pope to teach infallibly is that he must teach in accord with his
supreme apostolic authority. If he was the pope, Paul VI fulfilled this requirement.
EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II ENDS WITH THESE WORDS (OR
WORDS BASICALLY IDENTICAL TO THESE):
“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS
WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC
AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE
FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS
IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN
ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”7
Wow! This little known fact is utterly devastating to any claim that Paul VI could have been a
true pope. Paul VI ended each Vatican II document by invoking his “apostolic authority,”
followed by his signature! He clearly fulfilled the second requirement for infallibility. In fact,
this paragraph in itself fulfills not just the second requirement for Papal Infallibility, but all three;
for in it we see Paul VI is “approving, decreeing and establishing” in “the holy Spirit” and “by his
apostolic authority” all the things contained in each document! This is infallible language.
Anyone who would deny this simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.
The approval given to Vatican II by Paul VI (quoted above) is even more solemn than the
approval given to the infallible Council of Nicaea (325) by Pope St. Sylvester. It’s more solemn
than the approval given to the infallible Council of Ephesus (431) by Pope St. Celestine. In other
words, in approving the true councils of the Catholic Church, these true popes approved the
documents of these councils in ways that were even less extraordinary than the way in which
Paul VI approved Vatican II; and yet their approval of these true councils was sufficient to
qualify as infallible and binding – a fact which no Catholic questions.
Was Vatican II infallible? 471
It is, therefore, a fact that each Vatican II document is a solemn act of Paul VI. Each document is
signed by him; each one is begun with him speaking as “pastor and teacher of all Christians”;
and each one finished with him “approving, decreeing and establishing” all of the document’s
contents in virtue of his “apostolic authority.”
This proves that if Paul VI was the pope the documents of Vatican II are infallible! But the
documents of Vatican II are not infallible; they are evil and heretical. Consequently, this
DESTROYS ANY POSSIBILITY that Paul VI was ever a true pope; for a true pope could never
promulgate the evil documents of Vatican II in this authoritative manner.
3) A Pope must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by
the universal Church
We’ve already proven that Paul VI fulfilled all three requirements to teach infallibly at Vatican II
if he were the pope. For the sake of completeness, however, we will finish the point-by-point
proof by noting that the Vatican II documents are filled with teachings on faith and morals (part
of the third requirement). And they must be held by the universal Church, if Paul VI was the
pope, because Paul VI solemnly approved, decreed and established them, in virtue of his
“apostolic authority,” ordering that they be published.
Therefore, the third requirement for infallibility was also fulfilled by Paul VI in his promulgation
of Vatican II. But there’s still more!
In his brief declaring the council closed, Paul VI again invoked his “apostolic authority” and
acknowledged that all the constitutions, decrees and declarations of Vatican II have been
approved and promulgated by him. He further stated that all of it must be “religiously observed
by all the faithful”! He further declared all efforts contrary to these declarations null and void.
Paul VI says Vatican II is to be Religiously Observed
Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been
accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND
VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND
PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes,
WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our
predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued
by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE
FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE
APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE
PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO
HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and
complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern
or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL
EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER
AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND
WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the seal of the
ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”8
Was Vatican II infallible? 472
There you have it. The apostate Second Vatican Council is to be “religiously observed,” if you
accept Paul VI. There can be no doubt that if Paul VI was a true pope the gates of Hell prevailed
against the Catholic Church on Dec. 8, 1965. If Paul VI was the pope, Jesus Christ’s promises to
His Church failed. If Paul VI was the pope, all of Vatican II’s teaching on faith or morals was
promulgated infallibly (ex cathedra). But this is impossible – and anyone who would say that it
is possible doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching on the indefectibility of the Catholic Church.
Thus we know that Giovanni Montini (Paul VI) was not a true successor of Peter, but an
invalid antipope – which we already proved so clearly in exposing his incredible heresies
which showed that his “election” – since he was a manifest heretic – was invalid.
And if you are not convinced of this, ask yourself this question: Is it possible for a true Catholic
pope to “approve, decree and establish” all of the heresies of Vatican II “in the Holy Spirit” and by his
“apostolic authority”? Your Catholic sense tells you the answer. No way. Therefore, those who
recognize the heresies of Vatican II and the facts that we are presenting here, and yet still
maintain that it was possible that Antipope Paul VI was a true pope, are unfortunately in heresy
for denying Papal Infallibility and for holding a position which means that the gates of Hell have
prevailed against the Catholic Church.
Some people will erroneously argue that for a pope to speak ex cathedra he must condemn the
opposing view or set forth penalties for non-observance. This is not true. Nowhere in the
definition of Pope Pius IX on papal infallibility does he say that the pope must condemn in order
to operate infallibly. There are a number of infallible definitions where popes don’t condemn or
set forth any penalties.
Objection #1) At his speech to open Vatican II, John XXIII said that Vatican II was to be a
“pastoral council.” This proves that Vatican II was not infallible!
Response: This is not true. John XXIII did not say in his opening speech at the council that
Vatican II was to be a pastoral council. Here is what John XXIII actually said:
John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient
deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the
latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything
being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS
PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.”9
Here we see that John XXIII did not say that Vatican II would be a pastoral council. He said
that it would reflect the Church’s Magisterium, which is predominantly pastoral in character. So,
despite the incredibly widespread myth, the truth is that John XXIII never even called Vatican II a
pastoral council in his opening speech. By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II a
pastoral council in his opening speech, this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible. To describe
something as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible. This is
proven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as
“pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible. Therefore, even if
John XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not prove
that it is not infallible.
Objections- We will now refute the common objections made by those who argue
that Vatican II wasn’t infallibly promulgated by Paul VI even if he was the pope.
Was Vatican II infallible? 473
Most importantly, however, the fact that John XXIII did not actually call Vatican II a pastoral
council in his opening speech at Vatican II doesn’t actually matter. This is because, as we saw
already, it was Paul VI who solemnly confirmed the heresies of Vatican II; and it is Paul VI’s
confirmation (not John XXIII’s) which proves that Vatican II is binding upon those who accept
him.
Objection #2) Paul VI said in his General Audience on Jan. 12, 1966, that Vatican II “had avoided
proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.”
Response: It is true that Paul VI stated in 1966 (after Vatican II had already been solemnly
promulgated) that Vatican II “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by
the mark of infallibility.” However, Antipope Paul VI’s statement in 1966 is irrelevant. It does not
and cannot change the fact that he solemnly promulgated (in a way that would be infallible if he
were the pope) all of the documents of Vatican II on Dec. 8, 1965. Paul VI had already signed
and sealed Vatican II long before Jan. 12, 1966. Vatican II was solemnly closed on Dec. 8, 1965.
This means that if Paul VI was the pope (which he wasn’t), the gates of Hell prevailed against the
Church on Dec. 8, 1965 because of his solemn and final promulgation of all the heretical Vatican
II documents on that day.
The Magisterium is a teaching authority whose teachings are “irreformable” (de fide definita,
Vatican I, Denz. 1839). Since they are irreformable, they are unalterable from the date on which
they are declared. If Antipope Paul VI had been a true Pope, Vatican II was irreformable and
infallible on Dec. 8, 1965. Nothing said or done after Dec. 8, 1965 could undo (if Paul VI were a
true pope) that which was done already, for then the Magisterium’s teaching would become
reformable. Hence, the speech of Antipope Paul VI in 1966 (after the council was closed) has no
relevance to whether or not Vatican II was infallible.
But why, then, would Antipope Paul VI make such a statement? The answer is simple. The
diabolical (satanic) intelligence guiding Antipope Paul VI knew that, eventually, everyone with a
traditionally Catholic mindset would not accept these decrees of Vatican II as infallible, since they
are filled with errors and heresies. Consequently, if he hadn’t made this statement in 1966 that
Vatican II had avoided extraordinary definitions with infallibility, a vast body of people would
have come to the immediate conclusion that he (Giovanni Montini - Antipope Paul VI) was not a
real pope. So the Devil had quite a bit riding on this statement.
The Devil had to propagate among “traditionalists” the idea that Paul VI did not “infallibly”
promulgate Vatican II. It was essential to the Devil’s entire post-Vatican II apostasy; he was
scared to death that millions would have become sedevacantists denouncing Antipope Paul VI,
his false Church and his false mass (the Novus Ordo). Hence, the Devil inspired Antipope Paul VI
to say (well after Vatican II had been solemnly promulgated by him) that Vatican II didn’t issue
dogmatic statements. This assurance, the Devil hoped, would give Paul VI the appearance of
legitimacy among those who maintained some attachment to the traditional Faith. But this
diabolical ploy collapses when one considers the fact that Vatican II had already been closed in
1965.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, it must be pointed out that in the same Jan. 12, 1966
General Audience, Paul VI said:
Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1966: “The Council is a great act of the
magisterium of the Church, and anyone who adheres to the Council is,
Was Vatican II infallible? 474
by that very fact, recognizing and honoring the magisterium of the
Church…”
If people are going to quote Paul VI’s Jan. 12, 1966 General Audience to attempt to prove that
Vatican II wouldn’t have been infallible even if Paul VI was the pope, then logically they must
accept other statements about Vatican II which Paul VI made in that General Audience, such as the
one quoted above and the one quoted below. In this quotation above, we clearly see that Paul VI
says (in the very same General Audience) that Vatican II is an act of the Magisterium and that
anyone who adheres to Vatican II is “honoring the magisterium of the Church”! The
Magisterium is the infallible teaching authority of the Church.
Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in Terra (# 16), Dec. 31, 1929: “Upon this magisterial office
Christ conferred infallibility, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.”10
Therefore, Paul VI’s speech means that, according to him, Vatican II is infallible – since he says
that it is the teaching of the Magisterium, which is infallible. His speech further says that
anyone who accepts Vatican II’s teaching (i.e., its heresies) – such as that non-Catholics may
receive Holy Communion or the heresies on religious liberty or that Muslims and Catholics
worship the same God, etc. – is honoring Catholic teaching. Anyone who wants to “go by”
this speech, therefore, must admit that those who accept these heresies honor Catholic
teaching! This is clearly absurd and false; it proves that, no matter which way one wants to look
at this issue in conjunction with this General Audience of Paul VI, Vatican II is binding upon
all who hold that Paul VI was a valid pope – which proves that Paul VI definitely was not a true
pope. You cannot quote this General Audience to say one is not bound to accept Vatican II, when
the same General Audience says that anyone who follows it is honoring the Magisterium! Paul VI
goes on to say in the same speech:
“…it the Council still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme
ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has
to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the
mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.”
This part of the speech is almost never quoted by the defenders of Paul VI, probably because they
know that the teaching of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, which means that
even this General Audience of Antipope Paul VI affirms the infallibility of Vatican II. In the same
General Audience, Paul VI also said this:
“It is the duty and the good fortune of men in the post-Conciliar period to get to know
these documents, to study them and to apply them.”
Furthermore, Paul VI stated in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (addressed to the entire Church) that
Vatican II had the task of defining doctrine.
Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964:
“It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more
with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called
the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”11
This means that Vatican II had the task of teaching infallibly. And in the next section we will
quote from Paul VI’s 1976 speech where he addresses the very subject of whether Vatican II and
the New Mass are binding and specifically rejects the claims of false traditionalists who want to
be able to hang on to Paul VI’s legitimacy while rejecting his Mass and council.
Was Vatican II infallible? 475
Objection #3) Vatican II was not infallible because there was a note attached to the document
Lumen Gentium that said it was not infallible.
Response: Note: the response to this objection is in-depth and involved, and some might not
find it interesting. If you are not looking for the answer to this objection, you might want to skip
this one.
Some defenders of Paul VI make reference to a theological note that was attached to the
document Lumen Gentium. They think this clarification proves that Paul VI didn’t promulgate
Vatican II infallibly or authoritatively. But this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Here is
the crucial portion of the theological note that was attached to the document Lumen Gentium:
“Taking into account conciliar custom and the pastoral aim of the present council, this
holy synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals
which it openly declares to be such. THE OTHER MATTERS WHICH THE SYNOD
PUTS FORWARD AS THE TEACHING OF THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE
CHURCH, EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE FAITHFUL SHOULD ACCEPT
AND EMBRACE ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF THE SYNOD ITSELF, WHICH IS
CLEAR EITHER FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OR THE WAY IT IS SAID, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.”12
First, this note is not even part of the actual text of the document Lumen Gentium; it’s an appendix
to the text of Lumen Gentium.13
Second, this note is attached only to Lumen Gentium, not the rest of the documents. In other
words, even if this theological note did “save” Paul VI’s promulgation of the heresies in Lumen
Gentium (which it didn’t), it still did not “save” his promulgation of the rest of the Vatican II
heresies.
Third, if one reads the above note one can see that it declares that the subject matter, or the way
something is said within Vatican II, identifies that Vatican II is enacting the supreme
Magisterium of the Church, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation – that is to
say, as the Church in the past has enacted the supreme Magisterium. Paul VI’s declaration at the
beginning and end of every Vatican II document (quoted already) definitely indicates, by “the
way it is said,” “in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation” (that is, paralleling
past dogmatic decrees), that he is enacting the supreme Magisterium (if he had been a pope).
Therefore, this theological clarification attached to the document Lumen Gentium does not
diminish or negate the solemn language of Paul VI found at the end of every Vatican II
document. Rather, his language at the end of every Vatican II document fulfills the requirements
of the theological note.
Fourth, those who attempt to use this note in order to “save” all of the documents of Vatican II
from compromising Papal Infallibility don’t pay much attention to what it actually said. The note
clearly stated that “the other matters which the synod (Vatican II) puts forward as the teaching
of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, each and every member of the faithful should
accept and embrace according to the mind of the synod itself, which is clear either from the
subject matter or the way it is said, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation.”
This is a very important point! There are numerous instances in Vatican II where Vatican II is
setting forth what it believes to be the teaching of the supreme Magisterium, which “each and
every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the synod itself,
Was Vatican II infallible? 476
which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said…” For instance, in its heretical
Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), Vatican II says this:
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The statements made by this Vatican
synod on the right to religious freedom have their basis in the dignity of the person, the
demands of which have come to be more fully known to human reason from the
experience of centuries. But this teaching on freedom also has its roots in divine
revelation, and is for that reason to be held all the more sacred by Christians.”14
Here Vatican II explicitly indicates that its heretical teaching on religious liberty is rooted in
divine revelation and is to be held sacred by Christians. This clearly fulfills the requirements of
the theological note for a teaching that “each and every member of the faithful should accept and
embrace according to the mind of the (Vatican II) synod itself, which is clear either from the
subject matter or the way it is said…” And there is more:
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “Hence the Church is being faithful to
the truth of the Gospel and is following the way of Christ and the apostles, when it
sees the principle of religious freedom as in accord with human dignity and the
revelation of God, and when it promotes it. Throughout the centuries it has guarded
and handed on the teaching received from the master and the apostles.”15
Here Vatican II explicitly indicates that its heretical teaching on religious liberty is: 1) faithful to
the truth of the Gospel; 2) follows the way of Christ and the apostles; and 3) is in accord with the
revelation of God! We remind the reader again of the wording of the theological note, which
stated that “the other matters which the (Vatican II) synod puts forward as the teaching of the supreme
Magisterium of the Church, each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to
the mind of the synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said, in
accordance with the rules of theological interpretation.”
Therefore, according to the theological note itself, those who accept Paul VI as a pope are bound
to accept Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty as the teaching of the supreme
Magisterium of the Church! The theological note binds them to accept Vatican II’s heretical
teaching on religious liberty as: 1) faithful to the truth of the Gospel; 2) following the way of
Christ and the apostles; and 3) in accord with the revelation of God because this is “the mind of
the synod itself (Vatican II), which is clear from the subject matter or the way it is said…” It’s
very simple: those who believe that Antipope Paul VI was the pope are bound to the heretical
document on religious liberty.
To summarize all of the points made so far: 1) the theological note attached to Lumen Gentium
does not apply to every document; 2) the theological note attached to Lumen Gentium does not
diminish or negate the language of Paul VI at the end of every Vatican II document, but rather
proves that his language at the end of every document fulfills the requirements for infallible
teaching of the Magisterium; 3) even if the theological note did apply to every document – and
somehow did make Paul VI’s solemn language at the end of each document non-binding (which
it most certainly doesn’t) – the theological note itself still proves that various documents in
Vatican II are infallible and binding by the way Vatican II presents its teaching on these
matters. No matter which way one tries to escape the reality that Antipope Paul VI could not
have been a true pope and at the same time promulgate Vatican II, he fails.
Was Vatican II infallible? 477
St. Peter vs. Anti-Peter
In his dogmatic encyclical Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX infallibly condemned the heretical doctrine
of religious liberty (which had also been condemned by numerous other popes). Pope Pius IX
explicitly anathematized the heretical idea that religious liberty should be a civil right in every
rightly constituted society. The Catholic Church teaches that a government which recognizes the
right to religious liberty - like the U.S.A. – is, of course, preferable to one which suppresses
Catholicism. Nevertheless, this situation is only the lesser of two evils. The ideal is a
government which recognizes the Catholic religion as the only religion of the state and does not
give every person the “freedom” to practice and propagate his/her false religion in the public
domain. Therefore, the idea that religious liberty should be a universal civil right is heretical, as
Pope Pius IX infallibly defined in Quanta Cura.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:
“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that
erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of
souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY
OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH
OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY
CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand
and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC
AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR
AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER,
AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE
CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND
CONDEMNED.”16
Pope Pius IX condemned, reprobated and proscribed (outlawed) by his apostolic authority the
heretical idea that every state should grant the civil right to religious liberty. But watch this!
Whereas Pope Pius IX condemned, reprobated and proscribed (outlawed) this doctrine by his
apostolic authority, Antipope Paul VI approves, decrees and establishes this condemned teaching
by his “apostolic authority.” In other words, that which Pope Pius IX solemnly condemns by
his apostolic authority is exactly what Antipope Paul VI solemnly teaches by his “apostolic
authority”!
Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty: “PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT
OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED
COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY… This Vatican synod declares that the
human person has the right to religious freedom … THIS RIGHT OF THE HUMAN
PERSON TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD HAVE SUCH RECOGNITION IN
THE REGULATION OF SOCIETY BY LAW AS TO BECOME A CIVIL RIGHT… Each
and every one of the things set forth in this decree has won the consent of the Fathers.
WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST,
JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND
ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, and we direct that what has
thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic
Church.”17
Was Vatican II infallible? 478
The Authority of St. Peter vs. The Authority of Anti-Peter
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6),
Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:
“From which totally false idea of social
government they do not fear to foster
that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its
effects on the Catholic Church and the
salvation of souls, called by Our
predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity,
NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF
CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS
EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT,
WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY
PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN
EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED
SOCIETY… But while they rashly
affirm this, they do not understand
and note that they are preaching
liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY
OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE
REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND
CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR
AND EVIL OPINIONS AND
DOCTRINES SPECIALLY
MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER,
AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT
THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY
ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH AS
REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND
CONDEMNED.”18
Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II Declaration
on Religious Liberty: “PAUL, BISHOP,
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF
GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE
FATHERS OF THE SACRED
COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING
MEMORY… This Vatican synod
declares that the human person has the
right to religious freedom … THIS
RIGHT OF THE HUMAN PERSON
TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
SHOULD HAVE SUCH
RECOGNITION IN THE
REGULATION OF SOCIETY BY
LAW AS TO BECOME A CIVIL
RIGHT… Each and every one of the
things set forth in this decree has won
the consent of the Fathers. WE, TOO,
BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY
CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST,
JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE
FATHERS IN APPROVING,
DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING
THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY
SPIRIT, and we direct that what has
thus been enacted in synod be
published to God’s glory… I, Paul,
Bishop of the Catholic Church.”19
Is it possible for Paul VI to possess the same “apostolic authority” as Pope Pius IX? Does the
apostolic authority of St. Peter contradict itself? No way! It is heresy to say so! (Lk. 22:32; Vatican
I, Sess. 4, Chap. 4.)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“… Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His
own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles
confirmed… As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that
this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every
one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God
Himself would be the author of error in man.”20
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra:
“So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and
his successors in this chair… that with the occasion of schism removed the whole
Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the
gates of Hell.”21
Was Vatican II infallible? 479
With these facts in mind, one can see why those who obstinately maintain that Paul VI was a true
pope deny Papal Infallibility. They deny the indefectibility of the Church; they assert that the
apostolic authority conferred by Christ upon the successor of Peter contradicts itself; and they
assert that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.
The truth is that Antipope Paul VI was never the validly elected pope of the Catholic Church; and
therefore his solemn promulgation of the heresies of Vatican II did not infringe upon Papal
Infallibility. As we saw already, the Catholic Church teaches that it’s impossible for a heretic to
be elected pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. This was defined in Pope
Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
Endnotes for Section 38:
1 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, The America Press, 1966, p. 366, etc.
2 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 1839.
3 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 137, 199, etc.
4 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 559.
5 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 597.
6 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 802.
7 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 366, etc.
8 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-739.
9 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715.
10 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990,Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 355.
11 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5, p. 140.
12 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 898.
13 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 97.
14 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1006.
15 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, pp. 1008-1009.
16 Denzinger 1690, 1699.
17 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 675, 679, 696.
18 Denzinger 1690, 1699.
19 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 675, 679, 696.
20 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 394.
21 Denzinger 1837.

Actually, my particular point was that the author has repeatedly posted grossly antisemitic statements and supports and self-identifies with a group that denies the Holocaust. The robo-posts are icing... :)

>168 Joansknight: Joansknight, that whole quote is irrelevant. We all know that you and the one or two people that you quote believe John XXIII and Paul VI to be anti-popes and Vatican II to be invalid. That's your opinion. Now, if you were a "liberal" Catholic, that would be enough, according to you. You seem to think that "liberal" Catholics just choose to accept or reject whatever bits of Church teaching they want. But you're not "liberal". You are taking an ultra-conservative stance which means you can't accept or reject whatever you want; you have to base your belief on Church teaching. Church teaching is expressed through the pope and the bishops, and there is no more obvious expression of that than a Vatican Council. Even if you believed (against the teaching of all the other bishops of the Church) that the two popes were anti-popes, nevertheless all the bishops of the Church (most of whom were appointed before "anti-pope" John XXIII came on the scene) accepted Vatican II. So, once again I ask, on what authority do you reject the teaching of the Church as expressed by its bishops?

Of course I'm being very repetitive here, having asked this question over and over again. I'm still waiting to get an answer from you rather than a massive quote from someone else.

Let see....I have been labeled:

An ultra-conservative

A troll

A Judas

An anti-Semite

all by a SMALL group of people who claim to be Christian....I guess that is their interpretation.

In the domain of morality, is it not an accepted principle of our Western bourgeois world that there is no absolute distinction between right and wrong rooted in the eternal order of God, but that they are relative and dependent entirely upon one's point of view? Hence when the Western world wishes to decide what is right and wrong even in certain moral matters, it takes a poll-forgetful that the majority never makes a thing right, because right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. the first pool of public opinion taken in history of Christianity was on Pilate's front porch, and it was wrong.

- Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

>171 Joansknight: Actually I did not label you an ultra-conservative - I said your stance appears to be ultra-conservative. There is a difference. I have not labelled you any of the other things either.

It's not a question of majorities, it's a question of authority within the Church. If you are a true Catholic (according to the conservative stance) you accept the authority of the bishops of the Church. If you believe they are wrong you are perfectly entitled to leave the Church and set up your own Church, whether it be labelled Protestant or Sedevacantist. You become a schismatic and you are perfectly entitled to argue that your position is justified. But you cannot claim to be the representatives of the one true Catholic Church while at the same time rejecting the authority of those who represent the Catholic Church. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Who do you actually have in your sect who claims to interpret Christ's authority? You have neglected to answer any of my questions on your leadership structure (or anything else, for that matter). Who is the "founder" of Sedevacantism (please don't say Christ; I mean the post-1958 founder)?

I cannot see into your soul to see if you are an anti-Semite, and as a matter of site policy I cannot call you one, but I can state plainly what you have written: a string of anti-Semitic statements (and "jokes"), and public praise of acknowledged Holocaust deniers.

Let me see now....I think I have it now.

If your religion has a "pope" and "bishops" and you can interpret the the doctrines of your religion and worship when (Christmas & Easter mostly) and how you please, and you embrace the Jewish faith (that rejects Christ), you can say you are a Roman Catholic?

And anyone who believes in and defends the doctrines of the TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH is, among other things, a troll, a Judas and a schismatic?

>173 timspalding:: I made no anti-Semitic statements or made any jokes so I don't know where you are getting that from. If having Christ as my Lord and Saviour makes me anti-Semitic then I am not sorry.

I have never once seen any of you profess your faith in Christ. You just make good lip service to your Novus Ordo church and its apostasy.

“Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:21-23)

>174 Joansknight:

You're right, your repeatedly references to the Pope as "Rabbi Ratzinger," because he visited a synagogue, weren't funny. It's unclear if they were intended as such. Charitably, I prefer to think you thought they were.

I believe that all of us gladly profess out faith in Christ.

And, on this very special day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit. We sang "Veni Sancte Spiritus" today.

>174 Joansknight: If your religion has a "pope" and "bishops"

Well, that's what our religion has. That's what the Catholic Church has, and always has had. What I'm trying to understand is how you can reject the pope and bishops (which most people would suggest are a fairly basic part of the Catholic Church) and then claim to be the one true Catholic Church.

And once again I ask you: who are the (earthly) leaders of your Church? How are they appointed and ordained? How is apostolic succession ensured? These questions would be of little relevance to schismatics who had broken away explicitly to form a new "protestant" church, but if you claim to be the one true Catholic Church I think they are rather important questions. Humour me and answer them.

you can interpret the the doctrines of your religion and worship when (Christmas & Easter mostly) and how you please, and you embrace the Jewish faith (that rejects Christ), you can say you are a Roman Catholic?

I have no idea where that comes from. Are you suggesting that I don't listen to my bishops' interpretation of the faith? That I only worship at Christmas and Easter? That I have embraced the Jewish faith and thus rejected Christ?

When I saw the definition of the Mass in the instruction that precedes the Novus Ordo, I said: "This definition of the Mass is unacceptable; I must go to Rome to see the Pope." I went and said: "Holy Father you cannot allow this definition. It is heretical. You cannot leave your signature on a document like this." The Holy Father replied to me: "Well, to speak truthfully, I did not read it. I signed it without reading it."

- Charles Cardinal Journet of Geneva (1891-1975), explaining that Paul VI signed texts that he had not read.

This is NOT from MHFM by the way.

>179 Joansknight: But you know, you still haven't actually answered any of my questions in >178 John5918:.

There are bishops. I do not know all their names. Why isn't their authority from Christ and his Church while St. Peter's chair is empty? It has been empty many times in the past even times with anti-popes ruling in the Vatican and the Church still existed. Why can't this scenario be possible today?

Just because a man sits in St. Peter's chair, it does not make him pope. Nor does Christ's Church just vanish into thin air.

>181 Joansknight: Indeed. But then how do you know that the authority of "our" bishops isn't from Christ? How do you know that "your" bishops are the right ones?

>182 John5918:: Because, your "bishops". are manifest heretics. No single man has greater authority over the Church then Christ. Those that adhere to the doctrines of Christ's Church are its true followers. The Novus Ordo church puts man in equality with Christ, which is heresy and apostasy.

>183 Joansknight: No, that's the opinion of a few private individuals, not the opinion of the (pre-1958) bishops of the Church who met at Vatican II. My apologies to all who are getting bored with this circular reasoning, but on the one hand you quote Pius X saying that private individuals do not have the right to make judgements about the bishops, then on the other hand you say that you and a few other private individuals have made judgements about the bishops. And I am trying to say that you are perfectly entitled to make judgements about the bishops and form your own schismatic Church (which you have done), but that it is totally contradictory for you then to claim that it is the one true Catholic Church when it is manifestly based on a rejection of much of the teaching and tradition of the Church, including the teaching of Pius X that you quoted.

The Novus Ordo church puts man in equality with Christ

Really? That sounds like an over-simplified sound bite about the mystery of the incarnation which the Church has been grappling with for 2,000 years.

What does Christ's incarnation have to do with man? Yes, Christ was a man, but Christ is God. Christ is not incarnated into man. We have the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity....where is the struggle? Oh wait! Is the Trinity something we get to interpret the way we want to?

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, so how am I a schismatic?

>185 Joansknight: Well, I'm glad that you understand the incarnation so well. And the Trinity. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Church has not struggled to try to understand the mystery of the Trinity? I'm talking pre-1958, incidentally. I'm not talking about "believing"; I think you'll find that Catholics generally believe in the Trinity. But understanding?

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, so how am I a schismatic?

Because you and a few fellow schismatics have rejected the Church. A few private individuals have made a judgement about the teaching of the Church and have merrily gone their own way in opposition to the popes and bishops. What you believe in is not the Holy Catholic Church but something that you have created. It will even be difficult for Benedict XVI to invite you back as he did with the Tridentine crowd, as you don't even believe that he is a pope.

Why do I bother?

Well, JK, you seem to be interpreting freely.
You don't seem to be able to connect the dots.
What is the hope of being a Christian? I'll copy a few Church Fathers' quotes, but make it brief:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons stated that God "became what we are in order to make us what he is himself."
St. Clement of Alexandria says that "he who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him . . . becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh."
St. Athanasius wrote that "God became man so that men might become gods."
St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we "are called `temples of God' and indeed `gods,' and so we are."
St. Basil the Great stated that "becoming a god" is the highest goal of all.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus implores us to "become gods for (God's) sake, since (God) became man for our sake."

And thus our current Catechism:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

And a final quote from Thomas Aquainas:
"The gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle."

It is through the Eucharist that we more fully become Christ.

>186 John5918:: Why do we need to question the mysteries that God has manifested? It is human arrogance to interpret God's mysteries. We only need to believe. I think the Church has an understanding of the Trinity. I would quote several Church Fathers, but you do not like that. The Catholic Faith is not a science to be analyzed. You call me a schismatic, but I do not interpret Church doctrines, I take them for what they are. Martin Luther did his own interpretations....he was a heretic and the church he founded is a heresy and apostasy as is the Novus Ordo church.

>187 2wonderY:: I'm not sure of the context of those quotes, or the response of the popes at those times.

As I said before, and you justified it for me, followers of the Novus Ordo church believe themselves equal with Christ. That is an abomination and heresy.

We are to be Christ-like, but we are NOT Christ.

Wow, Christ died on the cross for nothing.

A quote by a Church Father, do not a doctrine make.

I can see why Novus Ordo followers have no need for confession....they think they are God.

It is through the Eucharist that we more fully become Christ.

That sure sounds like something anti-pope John Paul II would say.

"A quote by a Church Father, do not a doctrine make."

That's pretty funny coming from you.

I never said what they said was doctrine.

The quotes I used defended doctrines.

171> referencing the word "troll" That is a technical term:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

Tell me you haven't done this.

>193 2wonderY:: I am guilty....I am a troll. If I were a god I would not make such an error.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”



Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

1 John 5:19- “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness.”

Man is of God....NOT a god.

>188 Joansknight: Why do we need to question the mysteries that God has manifested? It is human arrogance to interpret God's mysteries. We only need to believe. I think the Church has an understanding of the Trinity. I would quote several Church Fathers

Perhaps because God gave us minds with which to question things? As I said earlier, we're not talking about believing, we're talking about understanding. Are you seriously suggesting that we should not try to understand God's teaching, and to understand how it should influence our lives? You would quote several Church Fathers which you would suggest demonstrates that the Church fully understands the Trinity, and 2wonderY could quote several others which would show that in fact the Church is struggling to understand the Trinity. I would say that it is human arrogance to think we understand God's mysteries, and it is the humility of the Church which accepts that we don't (and probably never will).

>189 Joansknight: I'm not sure of the context of those quotes, or the response of the popes at those times.

Exactly. And I'm not sure of the context of all your quotes, or of the responses of various popes through the ages. Church teaching is a compendium of 2,000 years of such quotes (and other documents) which all has to be interpreted in context and fitted together.

> 185, 186

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, too, of course. Just like Joansknight, I also believe that the Church of Rome ain't it (or more accurately, isn't all of it). Of course, my position as a "schismatic" isn't in doubt, I suppose.

184: "it is totally contradictory for you then to claim that it is the one true Catholic Church"

While I think the claim that the Bishop of Rome isn't actually the Bishop of Rome is ludicrously silly, I think this counterpoint goes too far beyond what is uncontestable. The Church of Rome teaches that the one holy catholic and apostolic Church subsists within itself as united under the Bishop of Rome, yes, but even without recognizing Anglcan apostolic sucession as valid (and I'll admit to a feeling of schadenfreude at Joansknight's dismissal of the validity of post-Vatican II sucession) it's clear that the entire historic episcopate is not in agreement on this point, not unless all of Orthodoxy suddenly decided to become answerable to the Pope.

Since the Church began in the East, I have sometimes wondered if the Orthodox church isn't the Church of Christ. I know that makes me sound like a heretic, but just think about it. Both their mass and doctrines have consistently stayed the same. They are more true to their faith then the Novus Ordo church. My faith is in the Catholic Church, but I find Orthodoxy very spiritual and fascinating.

>199 Joansknight: Or maybe none of us are heretics (which incidentally is something I've never accused you of) and God works more widely than we understand in our narrow denominational approach? A win-win situation? Both/and rather than either/or?

>198 cjbanning: Your caveat on apostolic succession is well taken, cj. I was just trying to discuss with Joansknight on his/her own terms.

>200 John5918:: I agree.

Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church's enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.

- St. Peter Canisius (1521-1597)

201> You took my breath away.

Let us unite in mind and heart, launching a counterattack on evil, that truth may at length triumph over error and virtue over vice, and this, through confident recourse to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and continual use of her heavenly weapons, the Holy Rosary and Brown Scapular. Victorious over Satan in the very first instant of Her Immaculate Conception, may she show forth her power over wicked movements which We clearly see to be animated with the spirit of revolt, and with the incorrigible perfidy and hypocrisy of Satan and his fellow demons. Let us implore the help of Saint Michael, Prince of the Heavenly Host, who hurled those rebels down to hell, and of St. Joseph the Spouse of the Most Holy Virgin and Patron of the Catholic Chruch. Under their protection and the persevering prayer of the faithful, may God mercifully come to the help of the human race, exposed to so many dangers.

- Pope Leo XIII (1884)

I still don't get the Immaculate Conception.

>205 cjbanning:: Think of it like this: Mary is the Ark of the Covenant and Christ is the law stored in the Ark. For the Ark to be able to store the law, it too must be holy and pure.

A. Then why does Saint Anne get to have original sin?

B. If the Blessed Mother isn't subject to the temptation to evil which is a consequence of original sin, then her not choosing evil becomes pretty darn unimpresssive. I could probably avoid choosing evil if it weren't for that pesky temptation. (Was the BVM subject to other consequences of original sin, like illness? Did she get morning sickness during her pregnancy?) The "victory over Satan in the first moments of conception" isn't actually her victory.

A & B: I do not have the answers. Only God does. But two very good questions.

St. Hilary of Poitiers (356): “The Church, instituted by the Lord and confirmed by the Apostles, is one for all men; but the frantic folly of the diverse impious sects has cut them off from her. It cannot be denied that this tearing asunder of the Faith has arisen from the defect… which twists what is read to conform to its opinion, instead of adjusting its opinion to the meaning of what is read.” (F.O.F., Vol. 1: 865)

Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1890): “‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned’ (Mark 16:16). From these words of our Divine Savior, it has already been proved to you, that Faith is necessary for salvation, and without Faith there is no salvation; without Faith there is eternal damnation…It is, therefore, not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes; he must profess the right and true religion, and without that there is no hope of salvation…” (The One True Church)

The Church must steadily and firmly heed that although the language of the people may change, the language of liturgy should not be altered. Thus, the Mass must be said in the language in which it was said from the beginning, even if such a language be already, antiquated and strange to the people, for it is wholly enough, if the learned men understand it.

- Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), De Missae Sacrificio, 2, II

“St. Lawrence Brindisi (1559-1619) says there are two Lutheran principles: 1) Scripture alone must be believed, and 2) faith alone is necessary for justification and salvation. He says that if ‘1’ is true, then ‘2’ is false; for Scripture nowhere says that man is saved by faith alone; but rather, the opposite, in James 2:24. St. Lawrence also says that ‘1’ destroys itself , for nowhere does Scripture say that nothing can be believed except what is contained in it.” (33 Doctors of the Church, p. 564)

They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, "the law of belief with the law of prayer," and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators."

- Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), Apostolicae Curae, September 13, 1896

>213 Joansknight: Joansknight, I'm no Church historian, but with this and many of your quotes I think it would be important to understand exactly what abuse the pope was criticising and exactly who was perpetrating it for what reasons. He almost certainly wasn't criticising decisions of an Ecumenical Council made by the pope and all the bishops on behalf of the whole Church. These quotes are meaningless if taken out of context.

> 214 they = Anglicans.

The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist, and the prophecies of Daniel, without a single exception, as far as I know -- and they are the Fathers both of the East and of the West, the Greek and the Latin Church --, all of them unanimously say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of the Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar will cease.... Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it were in the beginning, invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were, from the face of the earth. Such is the unanimous testimony of the Fathers of the early centuries.

- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning (1808-1892), The Present Crisis of the Holy See (1861)

I suppose this quote is meaningless to you also John....

>216 Joansknight: Presumably Manning is referring to whatever the then present crisis of the Holy See was in 1861, not to what is happening a century after his death. In that context it was not meaningless.

>217 John5918:

Or he was making a general statement about the end of the world. John and I and our 1.2 billion friends do not dispute that the end of the world will involve an antichrist, we just decline to make the—apparently logical!—step to proclaim that Pope Benedict the half-dozen popes before him and the "Vatican II" church of 1.2 billion seemingly nice and rarely horned people are the antichrist.

>217 John5918: (Accepting #218's point and supposing further that Manning did intend what he said to be general.)

The crisis of 1861 was Garibaldi and the reunification of Italy and therefore the question of Temporal Power of the Holy See.

Some of the intemperate parts of the lectures, such as that Rome might become the city of the Antichrist, led to early censure of the Italian translation and they might have even ended up on the Index had Msgr. Talbot not intervened.

Modern readers still know something of Cardinal Manning's story, and in particular the strains on his relationship with Gladstone from all this, from Eminent Victorians.

>217 John5918:: I guess you think prophesies are meaningless. What began in the 19th century and much earlier culminated into the Vatican II apostasy. Cardinal Manning and others saw it coming. They saw it, so why can't you? I know why, because you can't handle the Truth. You believe the Truth to be what you want it to be and not what it truly is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo !

“Before the 1971 changes in the Liturgy, the Athanasian Creed, consisting of 40 rhythmic statements, had been used in the Sunday Office for over a thousand years. It closes with the words: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which, except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.’”

I've only just realised that YouTube has loads of pro- and contra-Sedevacantism videos, some of which are pretty surreal.

eg, pro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTzgaXV1w14

eg, contra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH20RPOLFC8&feature=related

But I wouldn't rush to watch them all; one of each was more than enough for me.

Pope Pius XI (1923): “… the heresies begotten by the Protestant Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.” (Rerum omnium pertabationem #4, Jan. 26, 1923)

Perturbationem

It's amazing to me that the Latin text of Rerum omnium pertabationem isn't online.

2 Paralipopemon 19:2-“Thou helpest the ungodly, and thou art joined in friendship with them that hate the Lord, and therefore thou didst deserve indeed the wrath of the Lord.”

When I saw the definition of the Mass in the instruction that precedes the Novus Ordo, I said: "This definition of the Mass is unacceptable; I must go to Rome to see the Pope." I went and said: "Holy Father you cannot allow this definition. It is heretical. You cannot leave your signature on a document like this." The Holy Father replied to me: "Well, to speak truthfully, I did not read it. I signed it without reading it."

- Charles Cardinal Journet of Geneva (1891-1975), explaining that Pope Paul VI signed texts that he had not read.

>228 Joansknight: Haven't we had that one already? I seem to remember reading it in one of your posts recently.

If Paul VI really did agree with this single cardinal against all the bishops and theologians who had prepared the document, he could have made his feelings known. As far as I know, there is no evidence that he ever did so.

> 226
Sure it is. If Google gives you English on the Vatican's site, substitute _lt for _en in the URL and there you are.

>230 MMcM:

EXCELLENT! Wasn't in Google that I could see.

Reading...

Paralipomenon (Παραλειπομενων)

Joansknight, wasnʻt Paul VI one of the "heretical" popes, the sequence of which started in 1958, according to you? So, was Charles Cardinal Journet wrong to address him as "Holy Father"? (228) And what difference does it make, anyway
what Paul VI did or didnʻt do, if he wasnʻt a "real" pope?

An interesting thing about Paul VI is that he was one of the few in 1958 who were considered "papabili" (likely to be elected). As Bp. Montini of Milan he was considered a very serious candidate, even though he was not yet a cardinal; he was "papabile" along with French Cardinal Tisserant and Armenian-Lebanese Cardinal Agajanian.
Your cardinal Siri who was "cheated out of it (!?) and Cardinal Angelo Roncalli (soon to be John XXIII) were
conspicuous by their absence from the list of Papabili.

But there was a saying about "Papabili" at the time:
"He who enters the Conclave as Pope will exit as
(still only) a cardinal." In other words, the elected one is UNlikely to be the heavy favorite. (That didnʻt hold up in
the present popeʻs (Benedict XVI) case; as I understand it he WAS the heavy favorite.)

Thanks, b t w for bringing Cardinal Charles Jounret into it; because Iʻm looking into writers, of all denominations
on GRACE, and I see that Touchstones cites his
The Meaning of Grace But for your post, I wouldnʻt have known of it.

>233 rolandperkins:

Not everyone said it would be Benedict, though.

>233 rolandperkins: " Thanks, b t w for bringing Cardinal Charles Jounret into it; because Iʻm looking into writers, of all denominations
on GRACE, and I see that Touchstones cites his
The Meaning of Grace But for your post, I wouldnʻt have known of it."

Good evening, Roland. Don't know what exactly you're after, but what about an unusual book from fifty-some years ago that was not as much theological in its emphasis as it was psychological, written by a physician -- Guilt and Grace, by Paul Tournier? Just a thought. If some more standouts occur to me, I'll certainly drop back by.

G.

Hello, Gene,

Thanks for the reminder. I have been meaning to look into
Paul Tournierʻs writing. You might say, in L T terms, itʻs been a long-term TBR item. My TBR pile doesnʻt exist as a physical pile, only in my mind. But if it did exist physically, it would contain a lot of worthy authors whom it would be something of a task to dig out of the more recent TBRs piled on top of them.
It was in the 1960s, maybe even the 1950s when I first heard of him -- probably in the
School of Theologyʻs Library at Boston University. I spent some lunch hours there and really admired their collection. (I was working in the Liberal Arts Library of the same university.)
The last writer on grace that I tried to read was Avery Dulles. I found it disappointing, but worth giving another try. I think it was my own fault, not his, that I didnʻt seem
to get it. (I have no academic background in theology.)
I appreciate your coming up with the citation.

Hello, Roland ~

I found that book to be exceptional because of both its primary context of concern: the intermingling of the theological and psychological spheres -- but also principally for the great care and patient deliberating of the author. Tournier had two other books I got as well, but this one stood out and I kept returning to it again and again.

That you have no background in academic theology is, I'd say, a plus and not a minus. ;- )

Let's be keeping in touch on this. You know where to reach me.

All the best,

Gene

Pope Leo XIII: “The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.” (Satis Cognitum # 9, June 29, 1896)

>238 Joansknight: Interesting quote, which makes me ask: has the Church officially declared the Sedevacantists to be "rebels" and instituted any proceedings against them, as it did when excommunicating the Lefebvrists, or has it just ignored them? Sedevacantism certainly hasn't gained popular visibility in the way that the Tridentinists did.

In North America, there is a reasonably robust system of separate ordination, making that more difficult. It goes back decades and ultimately traces to a variety of sources, including Old Catholics, excommunicated centuries ago, and individuals like Ngo Dinh Thuc, who was excommunicate when he carried them out (whether he later recanted is a matter of controversy).

I know books are hard to come by there, but if you run across The Smoke of Satan, you might have a look. Of course, it is American-focused; Cuneo is a sociologist at Fordham. It is not entirely unsympathetic, particular in portraying individual believers.

Excommunication directed against the rank-and-file would presumably backfire and I imagine today's Church is media savvy enough to see that.

>240 MMcM: Thanks, Mike. Do you know anything about whether Sedevacantism has any leadership or structure, as joansknight has never answered that question, and I can't seem to find much on those rather disorganised websites.

I tend to agree with you about excommunication, although I sometimes wonder how media-savvy the Church actually is...

Sedevacantists have generally not been excommunicated for the simple reason that they aren't attempting to be part of the church.

There are some interesting issues here, however. See this Seattle Times article for some of them. The article deals with a unique decision to excommunicate a number of sedevacantists in Puerto Rico. The group was odd, however, in that they continued to go to and participate in mass, but would also lie down in prayer, blocking other worshippers.

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/m051221.html

The interesting question is how the church must regard people who honestly believe the Pope isn't the pope. The limit case on the other side is how the church reacted to the various times there were anti-popes, sometimes with gaggles of rival claimants that—in fairness—were hard to tell apart as regards validity. Basically following an anti-pope isn't ipso facto grounds for excommunication.

>242 timspalding: Thanks, Tim, for that very interesting article. Personally I'm not a great one for excommunication, although I can certainly understand why a parish priest wouldn't want that particular group blocking the aisles of his church.

It's interesting to compare this with periods when there were rival popes, but I think that article makes the point that this is different in that Sedevacantists claim there is no pope, a radically new claim which it suggests has never been made before.

I'd still like to know whether Sedevacantism has any structure at all, whether it has a leader, what is its authority structure and how it ordains bishops and priests. I've looked at the Wikipedia article, which answers some questions but still leaves me rather confused. Perhaps Sedevacnatism is just a rather confusing phenomena?

Just as you say, since there isn't an anti-pope, there isn't a parallel anti-Church in the sense of a complete pyramid. (To say nothing of the completely disproportionate scale.) But that doesn't mean that there is no structure, just no over-arching one.

So, instead, take a specific example among those on the page to which you linked, CMRI. They run male and female religious communities, headed by a bishop. They have a seminary that supplies clergy to perhaps a few dozen churches. A few of these have real, physical, church-sized churches. They educate Traditional Catholic children. Not to be disrespectful, but almost a complete time-capsule of pre-Vatican II Catholic American life.

That is enough to be self-sustaining. As to the second half of your question, how did this get bootstrapped, that was where I was going with #240. The founder of CMRI was ordained by an Old Catholic bishop. The community was established with the approval of a bishop ordained by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. And their current Superior General likewise by another of Thuc's bishops. As you can see, it only really takes one renegade sufficiently high up in the Vatican food-chain to start things rolling. Thuc, archbishop of Hue, was the older brother of Ngo Dinh Diem. He had the good fortune to be attending Vatican II when his brother was overthrown and Thuc retired to France. It does not seem too hard to imagine how all this political and theological turmoil might have made traditionalism and even sedevacantism attractive at this point. (Near the end of his life, the story gets really weird, with Vietnamese Catholic ninjas whisking him off to a monastery in the Midwest. See Cuneo's book.)

>244 MMcM: Thanks, Mike, especially for the CMRI link. It seems to be a better organised website than the usual ones, although its arguments are no more persuasive. I'm interested to see that their address is in Spokane WA. I spent a couple of years there almost 20 years ago and was deeply involved both in the Jesuit university and one of the local parishes, but had no idea that we had such an institution on our doorstep, and had never heard of Sedevacantism at that point.

>239 John5918:: Look at the world John. Christ is losing favour in the world every minute of every day. Our world is what society wants it to be, not what Christ wants it to be. Your "Catholic" church is what society wants it to be, not what Christ wants it to be. How blind to the Truth are you John? You and the rest of your friends who ridicule me are nothing Christ-like towards me. Your definition of Christianity is what you want it to be, not what Christ wants it to be! Look at the world around you John. Look at yourself and stop judging me. Stop putting me down because of my Faith in Christ's Church.

Respond if you like....I will be ignoring this thread!

Christ be with you.

It behooves us unanimously and inviolably to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether codified or simply retained by the customer practice of the Church.

- St. Peter Canisius (1521-1597), Summae Doctrinae Christianae

customary.

Oportet nos Ecclesiasticas Traditiones, sive scripto, sive consuetudine in Ecclesia retentas, unanimiter et inviolabiliter observare.

As almost anyone could guess from the date, Canisius is criticising Protestants. But, as he himself says, he is just echoing the Second Council of Nicaea (8th session):

Si quis traditionem Ecclesisae, sive scripto sive consuetudine valentem non curaverit, anathema.

Which is probably worth putting in its own anti-iconoclast context (7th session):

Fatemur autem unanimiter nos Ecclesiasticas traditiones, sive scripto, sive consuetudine valentes et decretas, retinere velle, quarum de numero est imaginum effiguratio.

>246 Joansknight: joansknight, I'm not aware that I was ridiculing you, but apologies if that was the case. I profoundly disagree with you, of course, but that is different. What I have been trying to do is to get you to explain to me the organisation and structure of Sedevacantism, and you have consistently failed to do so. The random quotes you give are quotes which are part of Catholic tradition but most people do not interpret as supporting Sedevacantism, and I stand by my assertion that the websites you normally quote are disorganised and do not really give much information.

I would like to hear from a practicing Sedevacantist what your Church is like, how it is organised, and all the other questions that I have asked at various times. Far from ridiculing, I think this is showing respect. In many threads we complain that others talk ignorantly about our situation (eg atheists telling Christians what Christians "actually" believe; protestants telling Catholics and vice versa; people Googling "Sudan" and then telling me what is "actually" going on in the country where I live and work), and so I would like to hear from you what your Church is actually like.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Christ is losing favour". If you are referring to the number of Christians, I don't know whether that is really important, but in any case while numbers are certainly reducing in western Europe and north America, they are increasing elsewhere, so that statement would take some unpacking, I think.

To use the words of the fathers of the Council of Trent, it is certain that the Church "was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost." Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain "restoration and regeneration" for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a "foundation may be laid of a new human institution," and what St. Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing "may become a human church."

- Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), Mirari Vos, "On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism," August 15, 1832

The true popes of the true Catholic Church warned us....but we did not and still do not heed their words!

Pope Leo XIII (1884): “…the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions.” (Encyclical, Humanum Genus)

Hey Jknight, what do you think of Canon Code 1556 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which states:

"The First See is judged by no one."

And for those who are truly brain washed here the First See, as referred to in canon law, is the See of Rome or the Roman Pontiff. And since every Roman Pontiff since Leo XIII was validly elected NO ONE can judge him and be found to be justified by Church teaching or law. In other words Church Law which was in force before Vatican II condemns your schismatic beliefs Jknight.

You and MHFM do with Church Tradition as the Protestants do with Sacred Scripture, you both believe in justifying your own private interpretation in opposition to the only authentic interpreter of the Word of God the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (i.e. The Pope and the bishops in union with him), Jesus Christ established this as such as taught by Pope Leo XIII and Vatican I. In order for the SSPX or Sedevacantists to be correct it would mean that Jesus is a Liar when he states that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church in Matthew's Gospel. Jesus is not a liar, the devil is and he is sowing these schismatic doctrines among the faithful. I will pray for you Jknight and many others who are blinded by these schismatic "solutions" which are not solutions at all but merely weaken and divide the body of Christ.

Hope this quotation from the 1917 Code of Canon Law will help those here to see the contradiction in Jknights arguments.

>165 PossMan: PossMan the third text that I posted in my post #164 is quite obscure and you would probably need to do a google search for it. Sorry that the link doesn't work. Peace of Christ to you+

Pope Leo XIII: “The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.” (Satis Cognitum # 9, June 29, 1896)

>252 campusdan:: Thanks.

Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own

Like people who think that 99.99% of Catholics aren't, have repudiated her teaching, and went off to found their own church, without hierarchy or communion with Pope, patriarch or bishop. But I digress.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 185: “And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God – namely, strange doctrines – shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud. But such as rise in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, shall remain among those in hell, being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Core, Dathan, and Abiron.” (Chap. 26, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 497.)

Hey, Joansknight. Good to see you're still hangin' out here.

What a warped idea....believing the Church can not exist without any hierarchy! The Church is the members who believe in its doctrines and in Christ our Lord! Those who claim to be members of the Church....even its so called pope, bishops and priests....do not follow the doctrines of the Church, they embrace false religions, murder their own pope (John Paul I), molest its children, invent their own doctrines, and the list of their sins and abominations goes on and on....Worst of all they embrace today's society and its beliefs....which are neither Christian nor Catholic! It is far easier to be deceived and believe in what you want to and what others want you to believe....then it is to believe in the TRUTH....Christ is that TRUTH!

In your eyes though....your pope and his apostasies is your truth....

>257 2wonderY:: Your sarcasm is touching....thank you!

NOT sarcasm! I am glad you stick around. I think you've got more than one song to sing.

>258 Joansknight:

So, wait. Apostolic succession is optional now? When did this happen?

>258 Joansknight:

Logically, of course, there's nothing wrong with your opinion. If everyone in the church were in fact monstrous apostates in opposition to God, then Catholicism might indeed exist only among a tiny, motley collection of Americans.

Also, logically, there's nothing wrong with the opinion that everyone we know is in fact shape-shifting alien lizard. Humanity may in fact be restricted to you and your pals, with the rest of us being lizards. Sssssssst!

In reality, people whose world view involves a monstrous, seamless, all-encompassing conspiracy theory are looked at as paranoids. Theologically, we have the indefectibility of the church—a doctrine I could, in imitation of you, conjure up hundreds of quotations in support of. The apostasy of the entire church, including all the bishops and the bishop of Rome, the Pope, would make that doctrine a lie.

>262 timspalding: conjure up hundreds of quotations

A lot of which could well be the very same quotations that joansknight bombards us with, as most of joansknight's quotes are valid quotes from our tradition. It's simply that joansknight chooses to interpret them differently from, er, the Catholic Church.

Pope Pius IX: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.” (First Vatican Council, Against Atheism, Session 3, On Revelation, Can. 1)

I think Dei Verbum puts it better:

"As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race."

>265 timspalding: You mean Vatican II was not heretical but actually reaffirmed the teaching of the Catholic Church? (!)

Ratzinger: 99% Protestant
Rev. Francesco Ricossa

Benedict XVI’s 1993 program for a one-world ecumenical church.

It would have gone unnoticed by all but the insiders, if the review 30 Days and the newspaper Il Sabato had not given it some publicity. It is fortunate that they did. What I intend to discuss is the meeting which the “Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, Joseph Ratzinger, held in Rome on January 29, 1993, at the evangelical cultural center of the local Waldensian community. The complete text of the meeting between Ratzinger and Professor Paolo Ricca, a Waldensian, can be found in the review 30 Days, No. 2, 1993, pp. 66–73. The title chosen by the editors for the article is significant — “Ratzinger, the Ecumenical Prefect”. One should also read the interview of the Lutheran theologian Oscar Cullmann by Il Sabato No. 8, February 20, 1993, pp. 61—63, which was given the title, likewise a significant one, “The Son of Luther and His Eminence”.

For the readers of Sodalitium I will present a summary of “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s ideas about the Church and ecumenism. It was this same Ratzinger who honored Bishop Guérard des Lauriers by “excommunicating” him. Anyone who wishes may verify the sources in the publications mentioned above, and see for himself whether or not it is the Catholic faith which Ratzinger now professes.

Cullmann speaks through Ratzinger

When Pope St. Leo the Great intervened at the Council of Calcedon by means of his legates, the Council fathers said: “Peter speaks by the mouth of Leo”. Having read the text of Ratzinger’s meeting with the Waldensians and Cullmann’s interview, one can say that Cullmann is speaking through Ratzinger. The words are Ratzinger’s, but the ideas are Cullmann’s. No wonder then that the Waldensians agree with him 99 percent, if not 100 percent (Ricca, 30 Days, p. 69).

But Who is Cullmann?

Cullmann was born in Strasbourg in 1902, in the homeland of the Protestant reformer Bucer, whom Cullmann readily makes reference to. (Il Sabato, p. 61). His sees in his birth in the province of Alsace an act of divine providence, since that region is half Protestant, half Catholic. He studied theology “under the guidance of Loisy at Paris” (Ardusso, Ferretti, Pastore, Perone. La Teologia Contemporanea, Marietti 1980, p. 108). The excommunicated modernist Scripture scholar could not have been a good teacher. Bultmann, the great “de—mythologizer” of the Gospels (Il Sabato, p. 63), was assuredly worse. It was to Bultmann that he presented his doctoral thesis on “Formgeschichte”, a method of exegesis invented by Bultmann. “Bultmann said that it was the best presentation of his Formgeschichte” (p. 63). Cullmann later broke “sharply” away from Bultmann, because the latter interpolated the Scriptures by means of existentialist philosophy, whereas Cullmann did not accept any interpolation. Yet Cullmann did not at all abandon the Protestant interpretation of Holy Scripture, or the “Literary Forms Method” (Formgeschichte) of Bultmann, according to which the task of the exegete is to discover the essential nucleus of the Bible: Cullmann sees it as the history of salvation” (Ardusso, op. cit., p. 110).

He taught as a professor of the independent faculty of Protestant theology at the Sorbonne in Paris (1948—72), among other places, and was later a member of the Waldensian theological faculty at Rome. He took part in the Second Vatican Council as an observer, and Paul VI called him “one of my best friends” (Il Sabato, p. 62). “During Vatican II, Cullmann, who was a personal guest of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, aided in determining the scriptural, christocentric and historical orientation of conciliar theology...more recently, Cullmann has proposed a model for a ‘Community of Churches’ in his work Unity Through Diversity (Brescia, 1988). Ratzinger praised this model during his meeting with the Waldensians of Rome on January 29” (p. 62).

He knew Ratzinger during the Council, and considered him “the best of the so–called periti, the experts...with the reputation for being an avant-garde progressive” (ibid. p. 63). From that time on they corresponded with each other, at first with regard to exegetical problems; later, states Cullmann: “We corresponded more frequently, and increasingly turned our attention to a discussion of my proposed model of ‘unity by means of diversity’, and as we mentioned earlier, the Cardinal has praised this model both in private and in public” (p. 63). Cullmann looks back with particular pleasure to a letter which he received from Ratzinger stating “I have always learned” from your works, “even when I was not in agreement with you”. This Cullmann sees this as a sign of their “unity in diversity” (ibid. p. 63). “Cullmann’s mission...is to number himself among those who have contributed the most to the dialogue between Catholics and Protestants” (Ardusso, op. cit., p. 112), though he himself remains firmly attached to heresy, explicitly denying the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and the primacy of jurisdiction of Peter and his successors (cf. Ardusso, op. cit., p. 112; Il Sabato, p. 62). Thus he is a bridge between Catholics and Protestants...in order to make the Catholics become protestants, and at the same time having them believe that they are still Catholic: “united” yes, but ...“in diversity”.

Ratzinger’s Speech to the Waldensians

Having taught at Rome in the Waldensian theological institute, Cullmann of course knew the Waldensians in Rome. Perhaps he was the one who suggested to his “disciple” Ratzinger that they would make a good audience for his speech explaining and disseminating their common ideas.

The topic of Ratzinger’s meeting with Professor Ricca on January 29 was twofold. It primarily concerned ecumenism in general and its solution to the question of the papacy, which is needed in order to revive the ecumenical movement, now in a crisis. It also discussed how we can bear common witness to the faith.

I will sum up Ratzinger’s thoughts, then discuss them individually in greater detail:

1) Ecumenism is necessary, fundamental, and indisputable

2) The papacy is the hindrance to ecumenical progress

3) The ultimate aim of the ecumenical movement is “The unity of the churches within the Church”.

4) This ultimate aim will be achieved in ways as yet to us unknown.

5) The more immediate goal of ecumenism is an intermediate step, that is, the model proposed by Cullmann of “unity in diversity”.

6) This intermediate step will be reached through a continual “return to the essentials.”

7) This “return to the essentials” will be aided by a reciprocal purification on the part of the churches.

1. Ecumenism

“Ecumenism is irreversible”, as Karol Wojtyla loves to repeat. Joseph Ratzinger goes even further: “God is the primary agent of the ecumenical movement” and “ecumenism is more than anything else a fundamental attitude, a way of living the Christian faith. It is not just one particular aspect of the faith among many others. The desire for unity and the commitment to it both belong to the structure of the same act of faith because Christ came to unite the children of God who were dispersed” (30 Days, p. 68). Ecumenism (or reunification of christians as Pius XI called it) is not perceived as a “return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ, from which they had the misfortune to separate themselves at some point in the past” (Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos, Jan. 6, 1928), or merely one method or undertaking among others of the Church’s activity. It is an essential element of Christian life and part of the act of faith itself. According to Ratzinger, one cannot have the Faith without being ecumenical; yet according to Pope Pius XI, one cannot have the Faith and be an ecumenist: “To favor this opinion ecumenism, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God” (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).

Ricca, the Waldensian, clearly addresses the problem (nor does Ratzinger contradict him): “The crisis of the ecumenical movement is essentially due to the fact that the churches have not changed sufficiently for ecumenical purposes....For ecumenism certainly requires, along with the patience of which Cardinal Ratzinger spoke, some very profound changes. Once a certain point is reached, either the church will change, or progress of the ecumenical movement enters into a state of crisis....Of course, this holds true for all the churches” (30 Days, p. 71). Hence he is saying that either the Church will perish, and ecumenism will live, or the Church will live, and ecumenism will perish ­– for if the Church changed substantially, it would perish. Now ecumenism is irreversible; therefore the “Church” as it is now, and especially the way it was before the Council, must perish. Thus we come to the question of the papacy, which must likewise change with the Church, or perish.

2. The Papacy: “the greatest obstacle to ecumenism”

Paul VI said it, as the heretic Ricca is pleased to recall. “As everyone knows, the papacy is the crucial point of the ecumenical question, because on the one hand it is the foundation of Catholic unity, while on the other hand, if I may express myself somewhat harshly, it prevents the unity of all christians i.e., it prevents ecumenism — F.R.. I must say that Paul VI had the courage to clearly acknowledge this in an address in 1967, in which he said, precisely, (and I believe that he was the only pope to say this) that the papacy is the greatest obstacle to ecumenism. It was a very noble address says a heretic! — F.R., not only because of this admission on his part, but in its entirety. The question of the papacy has brought the ecumenical movement to a complete halt” (30 Days, p. 70). Therefore, if a dogma of the Faith which happens to be the “foundation of Catholic unity” is an obstacle, indeed the obstacle to ecumenism, then Paul VI, Ratzinger and all of us ought to conclude that the ecumenical movement must perish. For it is impossible that a truth revealed by Christ for the purpose of being the foundation of the unity desired by Him could at the same time be an obstacle to unity. In fact the papacy is not an obstacle, but the sole means of becoming united to the one, true Church: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors” (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, ). Ironically, the only one to point out that what they are discussing is in fact a dogma was the Protestant, Ricca.

Ratzinger knows this, and cannot therefore speak quite as freely as his “colleague”, as he calls Ricca. So he evades the issue at first. “I think that the papacy is without doubt the most tangible symptom of the problems we face, but it can only be properly understood when seen in a broader context. Thus I do not think that addressing this issue directly, as was done in the preliminary notes — F.R. will leave us with a way out” (30 Days, p. 66). In other words, if he brought up the First Vatican Council and what was defined there, this ecumenical utopia would collapse, the equivocators would distance themselves from him, as would Cullmann, and true Catholics would get wise to the whole scheme. So he beats around the bush and refers back to Cullmann’s plan for “unity in diversity”. We will discuss this further on.

Yet sooner or later Ratzinger must come back to the question of the papacy. And what does he suggest? Certainly not the primacy of jurisdiction which the Faith attributes to the pope. “According to our faith,” Ratzinger explains, “the ministry of unity has been entrusted to Peter and his successors” (30 Days, p. 68). But what does this “ministry of unity” consist of? Ratzinger does not say. For the Church it consists in the primacy of jurisdiction of the pope over all the faithful.

For Cullmann, it would consist at most — how generous of him — of a primacy of honor; this proposition is, oh by the way, heretical (DS 2593): “I believe that the petrine service is a charism of the Catholic Church, and that it is something from which we Protestants should also learn” — Cullmann says to Il Sabato — but then he continues: “The pope is the bishop of Rome and as such one could concede to him a leadership role in this scheme for a ‘community of churches’ which I have proposed. Personally I would see his role as being a guarantee of unity. He could accept this if he did not have jurisdiction over all of Christianity but a primacy of honor instead” (30 Days, p. 62).

According to Ricca, there are three possibilities: “Either the pope remains and will remain...more or less what he is today..., in which case we must conclude that the unity will be a final gift given to us by Christ when He returns translation: “Us, submit to the pope? Not on your life!” — F.R., or the papacy will be altered into a type of ecumenical version of it...Hitherto the papacy has served as the center of Catholic unity; henceforth it shall be the center of unity for all christians... in this system, the pope would be the president of a new ecumenical church — F.R.. The third possibility, however, is that the pope will remain what he is today, yet will not claim to be the center and fulcrum point of christian unity, but only of Catholic unity...The churches could mutually recognize one another as the churches of Jesus Christ, really united to one another and really different from one another, and periodically they could all meet in a truly ecumenical council...” in this system the pope would be at the head of one christian church among the other churches united in an ecumenical council — F.R. (30 Days, p. 70–71).

What does Ratzinger think is the role of the pope? As I have shown, he remains silent, or rather fails to defend the teaching of the Church (which is Ricca’s first possibility), indicating instead that the third possibility is to be a stepping stone, with the second thesis as the final goal. For the time being, Ratzinger explains how “the orthodox heretical and schismatical — F.R. churches should not change much in their internal structure, almost nothing in fact, if they unite themselves with Rome,” (30 Days, p. 68) “and as far as their substance is concerned, that holds true not only for the orthodox churches, but also for those born of the Reformation (30 Days, p. 69). He even went so far as to study, along with some Lutheran friends, various possible models of a “Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession” (which follows the Protestant heresies of the Augsburg Confession, a sort of Protestant “creed” presented to Charles V by the heresiarch Melanchthon) (30 Days, p. 68).

Doesn’t all of this sound remarkably similar to the heretical proposals made by Cullmann and Ricca, and in particular to Ricca’s second model? We would have a Church presided over by a “pope” with an “orthodox” wing which would remain “orthodox”, and a Protestant wing which would remain Protestant. On the other hand, according to Ratzinger, the “orthodox” (and, mutatis mutandis, the Protestants) “have a different way of assuring the unity and stability in a common faith, different from ours in the Catholic Church of the West” (30 Days, p. 68). What Ratzinger is referring to, in the case of the “Orthodox,” is their liturgy and monasticism.

Now, who does not realize that the liturgy and monasticism among the “Orthodox”, like the Bible among the Protestants, are not sufficient to guarantee unity and the Faith? In fact, despite the liturgy, monasticism, and the Bible, they are schismatics (without unity) and heretics (without the faith)! To wish to reduce the dogmas of the Faith and the action taken to preserve them, namely the condemnations of error by the Holy Office, of which the Pope is the prefect, to characteristics peculiar not to the universal Catholic Church, but to its western (and Roman) branch, is a very serious error! And the quotes from the “orthodox” theologian Meyendorff (who criticizes universalism in its Roman form, but who also criticizes, as he says, “the regionalism as it developed in the history of the Orthodox churches”. (Ratzinger in 30 Days, p. 68) hardly serve as an assurance of the “ecumenical prelate’s” catholicity. Basically, Meyendorff is proposing the same aberration as Ricca: the churches, all of them, including the Catholic Church, must undergo a profound change to ensure the progress of ecumenism.

In short, Pius XI hit the nail on the head when he wrote:” There are indeed some who recognize and affirm that Protestantism has with inconsiderate zeal rejected certain articles of faith and external ceremonies which are in fact useful and attractive, and which the Roman Church still retains. But they immediately go on to say that the Roman Church, too, has erred, and corrupted the primitive religion by adding to it and proposing for belief doctrines not only alien to the Gospel but contrary to its spirit. Chief among these they count that of the primacy of jurisdiction granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. There are actually some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor and ever a certain power or jurisdiction; this, however, they consider to arise not from the divine law but merely from the consent of the faithful. Others, again, even go so far as to desire the Pontiff himself to preside over their mixed assemblies. For the rest, while you may hear many non–Catholics loudly preaching brotherly communion in Jesus Christ, yet not one will you find to whom it even occurs with devout submission to obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ in his capacity of teacher or ruler” (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos). Reading this text, one would think the Pope were speaking of Cullmann. As is evident, the Protestants have not taken one step forward from 1928 to today, whereas we find ourselves confronted with the open–arms ecumenism of the Novus Ordo, and its “pope” racing from one “multicolored” religious meeting to another.

3. The Ultimate Aim: “Churches within the Church”

But let us return to Ratzinger. In order to avoid the problem of the papacy, he first speaks about ecumenism, whose ultimate aim is obviously the unity of the churches in the one Church (30 Days, p. 66). We are tending towards the unity of the Church of God” (p. 67). Yet Ratzinger’s logic is flawed from the start, since if there is only one true Church, then what good are the other churches? Is this “one true Church” the Catholic Church or isn’t it? Or is the Catholic Church one of the “churches” which must unite themselves more and more to form the “one true Church? In the first case (one true Church = the Catholic Church), the aim has already been achieved, the Church is already “one”, and ecumenism has no purpose but the abjuration on the part of heretics and schismatics of their errors, and there are only sects, conventicle “churches” which are not to unite themselves but disappear.

In the second case, (the one true Church = a more or less close union of “churches” which are more or less different from one another) Ratzinger is serving up the error condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos: “And here it will be opportune to expound and to reject a certain false opinion which lies at the root of this question and of that complex movement by which non—Catholics seek to bring about the union of Christian Churches. Those who favor this view constantly quote the words of Christ, ‘That they may be one...And there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John XVII: 21; X: 16), in the sense that Christ thereby merely expressed a desire or a prayer which as yet has not been granted. For they hold that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has up to the present time never really existed, and does not exist today. They consider that this unity is indeed to be desired and may even, by cooperation and good will, be actually attained, but that meanwhile it must be regarded as a mere ideal. The Church, they say, is of its nature divided into sections, composed of several churches or distinct communities which still remain separate, and although holding in common some articles of doctrine, nevertheless differ concerning the remainder; that all these enjoy the same rights.” Can the “ecumenical prelate” explain himself? Does he believe that the one true Church of Christ already exists, and that it is the Roman Catholic Church, or not?

4. What Will the Church of the Future Be Like?

Unfortunately, I fear that he has already explained what he meant. The ultimate goal, the union of the churches within the Church, lies in a future both distant and unknown. “Therefore the goal, the aim of every ecumenical effort is to attain the real unity of the Church doesn’t this already exist? or is it only apparent? or unreal? — F.R., which implies a multitude of forms which we cannot yet define” (30 Days, p. 66). Elsewhere he states: “For the time being I do not dare suggest any concrete, possible and imaginable realizations of this future church” (30 Days, p. 68).

As a Protestant, Ricca was of course very pleased to hear Ratzinger’s ideas, for they fit in very well with his own thinking. After recalling the eight centuries of strife between Catholics and Waldensians, he added, “well then, why are we all here together? We are here together because, if it is true that we well know who we are, and know well enough who we have been, we do not know, however, who we will be. It is this very reserve on the part of Ratzinger in not proposing models, that is, the very attitude of not knowing, which binds us together. The Waldensians and the followers of Vatican II are united — in not knowing what the future of the Church will be like! For, as Ricca explained, either the churches will change or the ecumenical movement will die out. That a Protestant admits of the idea of a yet unknown Church of the future — fine. But a Catholic? How can he possibly reconcile that with the indefectibility of the Church? What other model of the Church can he present to the protestants than the one desired by Christ and founded upon Peter? How can a “cardinal” not know what the Church ought to be like, when it was founded by Christ two thousand years ago? One could say that Ratzinger has the same notion of the Church that Teilhard has of God: the Church does not exist...yet, but it is evolving towards its omega point, the final goal of the ecumenical movement.

5. Unity in Diversity

The Church of the future, therefore, will be one (in its pluriformity). Sometime in the future. What about in the meantime? We are in an “intermediate time” (30 Days, p. 66) of “unity in diversity”. “In my opinion,” explains Ratzinger, “this model could be described by the well—known term “reconciled diversity”, which is very similar to the my dear colleague Oscar Cullmann’s thoughts on the matter” (p. 67). We have already seen what sort of model of the Church Cullmann has proposed, and later on we will hear about Ratzinger’s. Suffice it to say that Ricca readily understood the gist of Ratzinger’s proposal: “I would like to state first of all,” states Ricca “that I am 99% in agreement, if not 100%, with what Cardinal Ratzinger has had to say. Indeed, I am glad and very satisfied to hear this, for it can serve as a starting point: as you all know, this concept of reconciled diversity is of Lutheran origin” (30 Days, p. 69). Thus Ratzinger wishes to lead us to an unknown church of pluriformity, modeled after a Lutheran concept of the Church.

6. A Return to the Essentials

But how is this “reconciled diversity” to be attained in practice? It is not a matter, admonishes Ratzinger, of “being content with the current situation”, to resigning ourselves to the differences between us.

What is needed in this dynamic process is perseverance in “walking together, in the humility which respects the others, even where we have not yet achieved a compatibility in church doctrine or practice; it consists in the willingness to learn from each other and to accept each other’s corrections, in joy and thanksgiving for each one’s spiritual treasures, in a permanent essentialization of one’s own faith, doctrine and practice, which must be continually purified and nourished by Scripture, while we keep our eyes fixed on the Lord...” (30 Days, pp. 67–68). How many contradictions in so few lines! How can we “walk together” if we think and act differently? How can the “seat of truth,” the Church of Christ, learn things which she does not yet know, and even be corrected, by heretics? How can the Church “respect” heresy and schism, which are sins? What distinguishes us from the protestant sects and the “Orthodox” is their very adherence to heresy and schism. Lastly, what does Ratzinger mean by “essentializing” (permanently!) the faith? This idea is at the center of his thought, and is not just his alone: “the search for the Wesen, the essence of Christianity, has been a typical search of German theology for more than a century. This search is exemplified in the works of L. Feurbach (1841), A. Harnack (1900), K. Adam (1924), R. Guardini (1939), M. Schmaus (1947), and in Karl Rahner’s recent proposal of a synthetic formulation of the Christian message. Similar to the attempts mentioned earlier, Ratzinger’s search for the essence of Christianity clearly bears the mark of its era, which has more and more come to be called “the post–christian age”. It is characterized not so much by the negation of this or that truth of the faith, but rather by the fact that the faith as a whole seems to have lost its spirit, its capacity to interpret the world, compared to other religions which seem to have been more successful in supplying its believers with an answer to the spiritual questions of our times” (Ardusso, op. cit., p. 457).

In reality, every attempt to “essentialize” the faith risks destroying it. Pius XI wrote, in opposition to the ecumenists: “It is never lawful to employ in connection with articles faith the distinction invented by some between ‘fundamental’ and ‘non—fundamental’ articles, the former to be accepted by all, the latter being left to the free acceptance of the faithful. The supernatural virtue of faith has as its formal motive the authority of God revealing, and this allows of no such distinction. All true followers of Christ, therefore will believe the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the august Trinity, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in the sense defined by the Ecumenical Vatican Council with the same faith as they believe the Incarnation of our Lord. That these truths have been solemnly sanctioned and defined by the Church at various times, some of them even quite recently, makes no difference as to their certainty, nor to our obligation of believing them. Has not God revealed them all?” (Mortalium Animos).

Ratzinger does not clearly explain what the essence of the faith is supposed to be, nor what “superstructure” is (in Ardusso, op. cit., p. 458, what is essential is to “present oneself as the church of the faith completely at the service of those liberating themselves from the superstructure which obscures the authenticity of its face”).

In his conclusive reply, however, Ratzinger specifies that his “thought coincides with Professor Ricca’s” (30 Days, p. 72) with regard to “the word essentialize”. We must truly return to the heart of the matter, to the essentials, or put differently, the problem of our times is the absence of God, and thus our greatest duty as christians Catholics and non–catholics together — F.R. is to bear witness to the living God.” (30 Days, p. 73). To be sure, as christians of all (or almost) denominations would probably agree about this one point, the existence of God, and “the reality of the final judgment and of eternal life” (p. 73). This “compelling factor” necessarily “unites”, because “all Christians are united in faith through which God has revealed Himself, incarnate in Jesus Christ” (30 Days, p. 73). (For the condemnation of this idea of bearing common witness to the faith, see Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).

7. Reciprocal Purification

But how will this continual “essentialization” come about? For Ratzinger, this positive process originates with the other “churches”. The Catholic Church would thus be continually purified...by heretical sects...so for now, while we await the pluriformous unity of the future, it is good that we have some (reconciled) diversity.

Ratzinger continues: “Oportet et hæreses esse” says St. Paul. Perhaps not all of us are ready yet for unity, and we need a sort of thorn in our side, provided by the diversity of the other, to awaken us from a divided and splintered Christianity. Perhaps it is our duty to be a thorn in each other’s side. There is a duty to let oneself be purified and enriched by the other...Even at this moment in history where God has not given us perfect unity, we acknowledge one another, our brothers in Christ, the sister churches, we love each other’s community, we meet in a process of divine education in which the Lord uses the different communities for each other’s good, to make us capable and worthy of definitive unity” (30 Days, p. 68).

Thus, according to Ratzinger, God supposedly wills that “heresies” exist. (In fact, He only permits their existence, as he permits that of evil.) Hence, for Ratzinger, God wills at this time the divisions within Christianity, its different communities, for one perfects the other. Hence the Catholic Church would be “revived”, “purified”, “enriched”, and no longer “divided”, thanks to the heretical sects of which the Lord makes use. And conversely, the Catholic Church would interact in the same manner with the other churches, and have the same effect upon them. All are in the dialectical march towards the indefinite future unity of a Church yet unknown which will result from this process.

The primitive Church, according to Ratzinger, is a model for this future church, but nothing more. It was united “in the three fundamental elements: Sacred Scripture, the rule of faith, and the sacramental structure of the Church” (30 Days, p. 66), and, as far as the rest is concerned, it was most diverse. Was it not also united in submission to the magisterium and the papacy? Did it not have the same faith, something which is not the case with Protestants and “Orthodox”?

Ratzinger is asking us to adhere to an unknown church of the future modeled after a falsified picture of the ancient Church, so that in actuality, we will abandon the eternal and immutable Church of Christ.

Conclusion: Pius XI judges Ratzinger.

If Ratzinger does not know towards what sort of future these “thorn—in—the—side” churches are heading while they “essentialize” one other, Pius XI will tell him. The Pope spoke in the encyclical Mortalium Animos, which Ratzinger dared to declare in conformity with Vatican II.

“The ecumenical or pan–christian movement leads to naturalism and atheism”, and prepares “a self-styled christian religion which differs like night and day from the unique Church of Christ.” “It is the avenue to the neglect of religion, to indifferentism, and to modernism.” “It is stupidity and foolishness” (Mortalium Animos). But let us not pin all of the blame on Ratzinger, for he is merely a faithful interpreter of Vatican II, as is Karol Wojtyla. This latter individual is the alien body who must be expelled from the Church, the spouse of Christ, and whom the forces of sanity in the Church will undoubtedly reject. As for us, we wish to belong to the Catholic Church and not to the heterodox phantom church of unity through diversity, cooked up by Oscar Cullmann and his heterodox disciple Joseph Ratzinger.

(Sodalitium 1993)
Free Info Packet
We can send you a free packet containing information about the traditional Mass, the Vatican II changes and the traditionalist movement.
Contact: St. Gertrude the Great Church, 4900 Rialto Road,

An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter
Rev. Martin Stepanich OFM, STD

Note: Father Stépanich is a Franciscan priest who was ordained in 1941 and who holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University. He has never offered the New Mass and over the years has carried on an extensive apostolate of correspondence with Catholics who resist the Vatican II errors.

The following letters are his response to an objection one frequently hears made against sedevacantism.

* * * * *

November 30, 2002

Dear Correspondent:

You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first pope, has “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”

You, understandably, wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.

The important thing here to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the papacy Our Lord established.

Did Our Lord intend that there should be a pope on the Chair of Peter every single moment of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the papacy existence?

You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of popes. You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no pope, occupying the Chair of Peter. That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a pope died. This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first pope.

But you also know that the death of a pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of popes after Peter.

You understand now that “no pope” does not mean “no papacy.” A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a pope does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair. A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.”

Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that, the moment one pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.

Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each pope.

That interruption of succession of popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.

Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new pope was to be elected. And He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”

Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a pope.

So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of popes after St. Peter has come to an end.

What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution. Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome.

Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the papacy. But He willed not do so, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.

We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight. But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.

If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope. God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.

God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.

Nothing is impossible with God.

Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

* * * * *

March 25, 2003

Dear Faithful Catholic:

Your letter of February 21, 2003, tells me about “doubting Thomases” who say that they “just can’t believe” that the Chair of Peter could have been vacant for as much as 40 years, or even for only 25 years, without the “perpetual succession” of popes being thereby permanently broken.

Those “doubting Thomases” presumably grant that the “perpetual succession” of popes remains unbroken during the relatively short intervals that follow upon the deaths of popes, and you indicate that, at least for a while, they have even understood – to their credit – that a public and unrepentant heretic cannot possibly be a true Catholic Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter must necessarily become vacant if it is taken over by such a public heretic.

But, as you sadly say, those “doubting Thomases” changed their views after they read the Declaration of Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870) which you quoted from Denzinger in your letter of November 8, 2002. Vatican I declared that “the Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church…”

Notice carefully that Vatican I says nothing more than that St. Peter shall have “perpetual successors” in the primacy, which obviously means that the “perpetual succession” of popes will last until the end of time.

Vatican I says nothing about how long Peter’s Chair may be vacant before the “perpetual succession” of popes would supposedly come to a final end. Yet the “doubting Thomases” imagine they see in the Vatican I declaration something which just isn’t there. They presume to think that “perpetual successors in the primacy” means that there can never be an extra long vacancy of Peter’s Chair, but only those short vacancies that we have always known to occur after the deaths of popes. But that isn’t the teaching of Vatican I. It is the mistaken “teaching” of “doubting Thomases.”

Curiously enough, the “doubting Thomases” never suggest just how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair would be needed to put a supposedly final end to the “perpetual succession” of popes. Their imagination has gotten them into an impossible situation. They “just can’t believe” that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair could last for 25 or 40 years or more, while, at the same time, they “just can’t believe” that a public heretic could possibly be a true Catholic Pope. At one and the same time, they do have a Pope, yet they do not have a Pope. They have a heretic “Pope,” but they do not have a true Catholic Pope.

Not being able to convince the “doubting Thomases” that they are all wrong and badly confused, you have hoped that some unknown “Church teaching” could be found in some book that would make the “doubting Thomases” see the light.

But you don’t need any additional “Church teaching” besides what you have already quoted from Vatican I. You can plainly see that Vatican I did not say anything about how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair may be. You also know that Our Lord never said that the vacancy of the Papal Chair may last only so long and no longer.

Most important of all, never forget that men cannot put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, no matter how long public heretics may occupy Peter’s Chair. The Catholic Papacy comes from God, not from man. To put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, you would first have to put an end to God Himself.

Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
Free Info Packet
We can send you a free packet containing information about the traditional Mass, the Vatican II changes and the traditionalist movement.
Contact: St. Gertrude the Great Church, 4900 Rialto Road, West Chester OH 45069, 513.645.4212, www.sgg.org

Pffft! Write your own arguments. This is lazy and lame.

>267 Joansknight:-269 My reaction was basically the same as Tim's. Firstly, it is much easier to read such long articles if you just give us a link rather than reproducing the whole thing. But secondly, I think I asked very early on in the Sedevacantist conversation on LT to please tell me what you think, joansknight. I expressed a genuine interest in how Sedevacantists live their lives and order their Church, and on how and where they worship, since I had never even heard of them until you popped up on LT. All you can respond with is quotes, a few from fellow Sedevacantists but mostly from the Church. The latter quotes are all accepted as part of our tradition by Roman Catholics, although obviously we interpret them differently from Sedevacantists, so I'm not really sure what is the point of posting them unless you are ready to explain how you interpret them differently. Most of us here are willing to try to express our faith and our praxis in our own words, based on our own experience, but I don't think you have given us a single example of your own thoughts in all the hundreds (?) of posts you have made. Please show us that Sedevacantism actually has real, thinking, living, praying, worshipping people in it, rather than just automatons who forward quotes!

Two can play at this game...here is a re-quote:

Hey Jknight, what do you think of Canon Code 1556 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which states:

"The First See is judged by no one."

And for those who are truly brain washed here the First See, as referred to in canon law, is the See of Rome or the Roman Pontiff. And since every Roman Pontiff since Leo XIII was validly elected NO ONE can judge him and be found to be justified by Church teaching or law. In other words Church Law which was in force before Vatican II condemns your schismatic beliefs Jknight.

You and MHFM do with Church Tradition as the Protestants do with Sacred Scripture, you both believe in justifying your own private interpretation in opposition to the only authentic interpreter of the Word of God the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (i.e. The Pope and the bishops in union with him), Jesus Christ established this as such as taught by Pope Leo XIII and Vatican I. In order for the SSPX or Sedevacantists to be correct it would mean that Jesus is a Liar when he states that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church in Matthew's Gospel. Jesus is not a liar, the devil is and he is sowing these schismatic doctrines among the faithful. I will pray for you Jknight and many others who are blinded by these schismatic "solutions" which are not solutions at all but merely weaken and divide the body of Christ.

Hope this quotation from the 1917 Code of Canon Law will help those here to see the contradiction in Jknights arguments.

In other words, Jknight and his schismatic friends contradict the 1917 code of canon law which was in force before Vatican II.

>271 campusdan:

In fairness to the Sedevacantists—I can't believe I'm saying that—the Code of Canon law is not discussing who can discuss the pope, but listing who can be put to trial by whom. Cardinals can only be judged by popes. Popes can't be judged by anyone. JK isn't attempting to use the mechanisms of canon law against the popes—for example (the only example) to propose that a council overrules a pope. He just thinks and expresses the thought that the pope, the council and 99% of the Church is heretical.

But that is my very point, if we where to resolve this issue of a pope falling into heresy how would we do it? It is not possible and impossible according to pre-Vatican II Church Law and therefore the One, True, Church established by Christ would have been destroyed by Satan, which Jesus said would never happen. Therefore the Sedevacantist contradicts himself with his own teachings, namely Catholic dogma and law before Vatican II. Also a pope becoming a heretic is impossible by the dogmatic teachings of papal infallibility in Vatican I in the 19th century, which happened before Vatican II. To claim that a pope is a heretic is to automatically declare yourself a heretic by contradicting the DOGMATIC CATHOLIC TEACHINGS of Vatican I, which Pope Leo XIII oversaw. So according to pre-Vatican II canon law no one can validly judge a pope in a canonical trial to be a heretic and according to the dogma of Vatican I it is impossible for a pope to become a heretic, MAN if it just wasn't for that darn logic problem JK might actually sound reasonable instead he is a schismatic in need of repentance.

>273 campusdan:

All that implies, though, is that the heretical pope must not be the pope after all, which is what JK is actually promoting, no?

Pope Pius IX: “… every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.” (Quartus Supra #12, Jan. 6, 1873)

Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church's enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.

- St. Peter Canisius (1521-1597), one of the greatest Jesuit theologians, speaking of the Protestants, who were then introducing changes such as vernacular liturgies, the abolition of fasting laws, the removal of statues, and other diminutions of traditional Catholicism

Pope Pius IX: “… every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.” (Quartus Supra #12, Jan. 6, 1873)

Holy smokes! Doesn't that bite? You really think that 99.99% of Catholics in the world "fashioned a heresy" for themselves in order to withdraw from a couple of misanthropes and holocaust deniers in the American Midwest?!

I think Pius IX was wrong, however. Would it really be accurate to say, historically, that the Orthodox church "fashioned a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the church"?

Politics played a big part with the East breaking away from the West....

Even if there were only one person left who held the right Catholic Faith, there would be the Catholic Church.

- Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerick (1774-1824)

Pope St. Pius X: “…it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments…” (Ex quo, Dec. 26, 1910)

Tim I do not deny that there was a holocaust....The Nazis not only killed Jews....they also killed Catholics....but I guess for you it is more important to remember the Jews! Many different peoples were killed by the Nazis....no one thinks about them or even cares! Christ is my saviour, Tim, not the Jewish nation (who denies Christ)! My faith is in the Catholic Church....not in the apostasy you believe in nor the Jewish faith!

Tim, I have to wonder....how will you celebrate Easter? I am sure you will inject your sick humour into your answer....that just shows me how cruel you are and what you think of Christ!

Joansknight, see >270 John5918:, where once again I ask you for some of your own views on the Sedevacantist church (or the One True Catholic Church as you believe it to be), not just quotes from others, and for some information on how your Church worships and organises itself in your own experience. Even though I disagree with you, I'm genuinely interested to hear about it, but all I get is long quotes (most of which are from my own Church anyway so I agree with them but disagree with your interpretation of them). Please, give us some personal stuff, something which comes from Joansknight.

Pope Leo XIII: “Miserable it is to live in a barbarous state and with savage manners: but more miserable to lack the knowledge of that which is highest, and to dwell in ignorance of the one true God.” (Quarto abeunte saeculo #4, July 16, 1892)

In response to >275 Joansknight:, Wow that is exactly my point.

That MHFM and others of the SSPX and Sedevacantist positions have fabricated a heresy in order to justify their schism from the One, True Church.

According to pre-Vatican II church law and dogma their theological positions are contradictory and untenable.

In which I refer you to my post >273 campusdan:

May God Bless us all and give us all the grace of repentance and humility +

Pope Pius IX: “He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church; whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.” (Amantissimus #3, April 8, 1862)

>283 Joansknight: Well, that one really does sum up Sedevacantists, who could be said to have "deserted" the Church but still "vainly believe" that they are the one true Church.

>283 Joansknight:

Remarkable. You might as well condemn people who post on the internet.

When the Emperor Julian the Apostate “asked the aged and blind bishop Maris of Chalcedon whether he thought that his Galilean God Our Lord Jesus Christ would heal him of his infirmity, the man of God replied: ‘I thank God for having permitted me to become blind, so that I do not have to look upon the face of an apostate.’” (Laux, Church History, p. 102)

Pope Gregory XVI: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.” (Mirari Vos #7, August 15, 1832)

>287 Joansknight: And who is to decide "expression and meaning"? The Church, through its pope and bishops, or a handful of people with a website in the USA?

he Errors of Peter Abelard #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned

“Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.” (John 18:37)

I would like to wish all of you a Blessed Feast of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And to you as well!

Likewise!

The same (290, 291, 292) to John, tim, Joansknight, campusdan and, as Jack Kerouac said, all "the people of this book-movie".

May it always be so, now and always. Alleluia!

Amen and amen. We can all rejoice that He is risen.

St. Francis De Sales (1602): “As to decrees on doctrines of faith they are invariable; what is once true is so unto eternity…”

Pope Gregory XVI (1832): " …it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain 'restoration and regeneration' for her the Church as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune." (Mirari Vos #10)

>297 Joansknight: And yet "restoration and regeneration" in the Church took place frequently, long before 1832. The Cluniac reform is one that springs to mind immediately. The Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation could also be seen as a movement of "restoration and regeneration".

~270

John, let me respond to some of your questions as I represented a Church of Traditional Catholics for about a year and a half recently and have seen how they and their Sedevacantist brethren worship and organize.

In general, there is a congregation and a Priest. In the case of the Church I represented the founding Priest was a retired ordained and recognized Roman Catholic Priest and his successor was ordained (and as far as I could tell much more educated than the ordinary Roman Catholic Priest), but was not recognized.

The problem of organization that you raise is, however, a good one. Apparently the founding Priest of the Church I represented had allowed a rather questionable business organizations attorney to incorporate the Church and create a Board for it. There was no question who was in control during the Founding Priest's life, but there were documents that raised questions after his death and his appointment of a successor. Basically, the legal controversy I was involved in involved a power struggle between the Board (which claimed to be self-perpetuating and supreme) and the Priest/congregation over control over the Church property (which was far from negligible). It was not a pretty struggle - but is not a lot different from what goes on in many Protestant or nonfundamentalist Jewish congregations.

Thanks, lawecon. It's interesting to hear those sort of details.

I do wish joansknight would also answer the question.

I can not answer your question John....there is no Catholic Church near me that I am able to attend mass....very unfortunate! There are plenty of heretical churches in the area though....I would rather keep my soul then to attend one of them! I dearly wish I could attend mass and recieve our Lord's precious body.

It is true that the Church has experienced "restoration and regeneration", but not to the point where new doctrines have been created or doctrines have been abandoned....as by the counterfeit-catholic church.

It sounds to me like Lawecon belonged to yet another heretical sect....such as SPPX or CMRI.

"It sounds to me like Lawecon belonged to yet another heretical sect....such as SPPX or CMRI."

John, you might want to repeat in this thread what you recently said in another thread about splinters and the difference between Protestant and Catholic Christianity.

Incidentally, Joan, I am a Jew, so you don't have to worry about my being a heretic.

>302 lawecon: Can you remind me, lawecon, or give a reference to that thread? Sorry, my memory is like a sieve!

>301 Joansknight:

Although I'm not in sympathy with your schism, I have to say I feel sorry that you want to attend mass and can't. That's got to be rough. Do you drive or fly somewhere once a year?

St. Augustine (393): “We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself…”

He was referring to Donatists. It seems to me you guys are much more like the Donatists than not. The Donatists were rigorists who believed that they were the Catholic church, and the others were heretics.

>301 Joansknight: I not infrequently find myself in places where there is no Catholic Mass of a Sunday. Working ecumenically as I do, I would usually go to a church service with whichever denomination is present. I suspect that God will still allow me to "keep my soul".

It is true that the Church has experienced "restoration and regeneration", but not to the point where new doctrines have been created or doctrines have been abandoned

I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Once again, most of the Catholic Church would disagree with you that new doctrines have been created and others abandoned by Vatican II. The continuity of doctrine would seem to have been important to the Council Fathers, even as they restored and regenerated the Church.

>307 John5918:

You don't take communion, right?

On the question of doctrines, while it's got shades of the "true scotsman" fallacy, I'd say that somethings were discovered not to be doctrines at all. At one point, for example, there were popes who believed that Catholic doctrine required a Catholic monarch, legal disabilities against non-Catholics, and that Catholics cannot believe the earth moves around the sun, and so forth. I don't think those doctrines were well founded, but there were certainly popes calling them eternal and unchanging truth. I suspect much the same will be perceived with various hot-button social issues—in 100 years…

Speaking of SSPXers, the Vatican is in late stages for a reunion with them.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican-reconciliation-talks-sspx-ongoing
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/cold-feet-match-between-rome-and-lefebvrists
etc.

It is remarkable how their blatant schism and evident heresy gets the royal treatment at the Vatican—everyone so concerned to get them back in when it's clear they're going to continue to reject an ecumenical council—as compared especially with their approach to recent attempts to crack down on female religious, the Austrian priests, etc.

>308 timspalding: Most of these churches don't have communion on any regular basis. It's usually a service based on scripture and preaching.

I agree with you that some "doctrine" wasn't doctrine. In the same vein, I was taught all sorts of things by pious nuns, priests and teachers when I was a kid which I later found out were "popular Catholicism" in certain cultures but were not doctrine.

>309 John5918:

Church doctrine often seems like a game of Simon says—if a pope or curial committee says it's doctrine, it's doctrine. By that criterion, however, doctrine definitely has changed, and not just recently. You can't solve the problem without understanding that not all truth, or media of expressing truth, are of equal weight or certainty.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

>311 Joansknight: joansknight, I think I've said before that it really would help me if you would add some comment of your own to the quotes you use. I have no disagreement with most of the quotes that you post. I suspect, however, that I am interpreting them differently from you, but unless you actually give us a clue as to what your intention is in using that quote I don't know what you mean.

I just liked the Orwell quote....it is very poignant in this day and age.

The dogmas of the Catholic Church are not meant to be interpreted by any person or group of people to satisfy their own wants and desires....they are straightforward....they are to be obeyed, lived by and defended. It is bad enough our society picks and chooses which of the Ten Commandments to obey or how they interpret them. Thou shalt not kill....means one thing only....DO NOT KILL....there are no ifs, ands or buts. You can continue....at your own risk....to interpret the way you want....I will continue to follow what Christ and His Church wants!

Pope Leo XIII (1900): "But this supremacy of man, which openly rejects Christ, or at least ignores Him, is entirely founded upon selfishness, knowing neither charity nor self-devotion." (Tametsi Futura #7)

>313 Joansknight:

"Thou shalt not kill" seems like an odd one for someone named after Joan of Arc to get inflexible about.

>313 Joansknight: The dogmas of the Catholic Church are not meant to be interpreted by any person or group of people to satisfy their own wants and desires

I have no disagreement with that. Dogma is interpreted by the Church, not "by any person or group of people to satisfy their own wants and desires". You have set yourselves at odds with the Church; you are actually part of a small group of people which is interpreting dogma in its own way.

Thou shalt not kill....means one thing only....DO NOT KILL....there are no ifs, ands or buts.

And yet there is a just war theory which long predates your 1958 cut-off date. The Church considers it lawful to kill during a war if the war meets certain criteria. The Church also considered it lawful, at different points before 1958, to kill Muslims in the Crusades, to torture people to death during the Inquisition, and to burn Anglicans to death in Britain. As Tim says, I think you have chosen a poor example.

~315

"Thou shalt not kill...."

Actually, it is pretty certain that the Hebrew means "thou shalt not murder......"

Indeed.

>314 timspalding:: St. Joan never killed anyone....I suppose you don't even think she should be a saint....you are probably one of those people who thinks she was nuts and that God never even spoke to her! I think you know very little about St. Joan or the virtuous life she lead and above all she did God's will....can you say the same?

I was referring to our society's disregard for human life....such as abortion.

I love it....it is okay to kill, but not murder....God and only God has the power over life and death....not man! Pick and choose....you all do it well!

Pope St. Leo the Great (c. 450): “For whoever is led away from the path of the true faith, and changed to another, his whole journey is an apostasy; and the further he travels from the Catholic light, the nearer he comes to the darkness of death.”

This is getting weirder and weirder. Now Joan of Arc never killed anyone. Say what?

Now if you don't like what the Hebrew "original" says from the book you are quoting then you can always rewrite it...............

>319 Joansknight:

She led armies! Do you think the armies were picking tulips?

As for the murder vs. kill, this is not some abstruse thing, but common knowledge of people who actually know the Bible. You thunder about this, but reveal a lack of Bible knowledge beneath that of an average Evangelical pre-teens. (Talk about worse excesses of pre-conciliar Catholicism!) If indeed God prohibited all killing, he would surely not have allowed people the Israelites to fight wars or execute for a wide variety of crimes, and Joan of Arc would have been guilty of urging mass disobedience of God's commandments!

>320 Joansknight: joansknight, you don't seem to have read my post >315 John5918: where I point out that the Church (the pre-1958 "real" Catholic Church) allowed and indeed at times encouraged killing. It seems you are the one who is picking and choosing!

What I don't get is the curiously contradictory position in which joansknight finds herself.

She is a member of a Church, or claims to be a member of a Church, which is distinguished from other (Protestant) forms of Christianity by having a particularly central role for clergy. The clergy administer the sacraments, the laity cannot do this for themselves without the clergy. That was, in fact, one of the distinguishing traits of the break off of the anabaptist movement from the Church. The anabaptists baptised themselves without an ordained clergy. They administered the Eucharist without clergy, etc.

Now she, first of all, places herself in the position of judging those who comprise the overwhelming majority clergy in her Church and make doctrinal and community judgments in her Church (bad enough) but she then, next, she apparently doesn't adhere to any group of alternative dissenting clergy. She doesn't have a congregation, I presume she also doesn't have a priest.

What kind of Catholicism is this?

(himself)

I apologize that I'm not familiar with you. However, you do appear to have some great volumes on anarchism.

I will say it again....because apparently no one saw it or everyone ignored it....I was referring to society’s disregard for life....including those “catholics” that favour abortion!

As for St. Joan....she did God’s will....not her own!

"I do no wrong to serve God!"
-St. Jeanne d'Arc (1412-1431)

>327 Joansknight: I may have missed something, but I don't think you referred to abortion in your original post >313 Joansknight:. You simply referred to "Thou shalt not kill", and several of us responded to that. It's helpful that you have now clarified that you mean abortion.

>327 Joansknight:

Fair enough, but the whole point of your post was that there are no exceptions, and that we were picking and choosing. You were emphatic about "Thou shalt not kill" meaning just that. You say not you really only meant to discuss abortion. That doesn't seem like a "no exceptions" opinion to any of us. It seems like the opposite. Hence the replies.

As a number of us have pointed out, "kill" is likely a bad translation. But that didn't seem to be what you were saying. Correct us if we're wrong there.

Who has lost and who has won in the struggle -- the one who keeps the premises buildings or the one who keeps the Faith? The Faith obviously. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now may not be lost in our days,... rouse yourselves, brethren,... seeing them now seized upon by aliens. --Saint Basil the Great (ca. 330-ca. 379) (in 371)

THE APOSTATES OCCUPY THE CHURCH'S MOST HOLY BUILDING....

>330 Joansknight: Well, it does seem as if we Catholics are the ones keeping the faith, ie remaining in continuity and apostolic succession with the teaching authority of the Church, including St Basil the Great, while you Sedevacantists have gone off at a tangent. Seems we have managed to keep the buildings as well as the faith.

I had been away for several weeks, and when I stepped inside my home church last evening, I breathed a sigh of relief. Home!

Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.)

“At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s Nazianz present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.” (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.)

St. Gregory Nazianz (+380): “Where are they who revile us for our poverty and pride themselves in their riches? They who define the Church by numbers and scorn the little flock?” (“Against the Arians,” The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 33)

St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition were reduced to a handful, they would be the true Church.”

>334 Joansknight: Fortunately we "Catholics faithful to Tradition" are not "reduced to a handful". There are around 1.2 billion of us.

>334 Joansknight:

1. In the east. The West, and especially Rome, never succumbed. (Rome doesn't fall to heresy, bub.)
2. Being deposed as bishop by the government is not the same thing. The orthodox population was by no means 1–3%.

Blind that they the Modernists are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment. With that new system of theirs, they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.

- Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846)

Rome doesn't fall to heresy, bub. That is very strange....other anti-popes have ruled Rome in the past....why is the present any different?!?!?

You do not think that Satan can have power over many....even a billion people!?!?! You deny Satan's presence in the world? Look around you....he is winning the world over with deceptions and lies!

Members of your "faith" are so faithful that they are leaving your church by the hundreds....parishes are closing and you have a shortage of "priests"! One billion "catholics"....for thousands that is in name alone!

>337 Joansknight: Well, then, maybe we will end up with just the faithful handful to which Athanasius alludes (>334 Joansknight:). But I think you underestimate the degree of expansion in the Catholic Church in some parts of the world (eg Africa), even though you're correct that its membership is declining in Europe and north America.

> 337

Isn't that Pius X (Pascendi Dominici Gregis)? An extended quotation from Gregory XVI (Singulari Nos) only begins around “they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty” (quo ex projecta et effrenata novitatum cupiditate). About Paroles d'un croyant.

Not Sedevacante, but another breakaway group that would like to claim to be the custodians of the True Faith...

Traditionalist SSPX calls Vatican offer 'clearly unacceptable' (NCR)

It seems that Levada, in Benedict's old job, is much less willing to allow the SSPX to ignore Vatican II than his predecessor is.

>341 timspalding: And rightly so. Vatican II is a major ecumenical council and the source of authoritative teaching. While there can be negotiations on some of SSPX's practices, they can't ignore the magisterium on the one hand and claim they want to be in full communion with, er, the magisterium on the other.

>342 John5918:

Here's the letter, apparently. Reading.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/for-record-confidentiality-like-water.h...

Doesn't say much more than the stories. It's interesting to see them suspend Williamson citing both the new and the old Code of Canon Law.

>343 timspalding: I hate the way the label "Traditional Catholic" has been appropriated by those of extreme views such as the website to which you link. I consider myself a "Traditional Catholic" in that I am very much aware of and part of the tradition of the Church and indeed I consider "tradition" to be an important part of what it means to be Catholic. Of course I include the whole tradition, not just from the Council of Trent until the day before Vatican II, which probably makes me more "Traditional" than most of those who claim the label. But basically I just hate labelling...

Fellay: “Things are at a standstill, we cannot sign”
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/fellay...

I don't understand how the SSPX's view of the matter holds together. It would be consistent to say that VII wasn't an ecumenical council at all. (The sedevacantists are consistent at least.)They could hold out hope on that. (Good luck, guys.) But trying to wring a statement that VII doesn't say what it says undermines the project. If the magisterium isn't the magisterium, then you've undermined your very reason to be.

>345 timspalding: And that's precisely the Catch 22 in which these type of Catholics find themselves. They push the importance of obedience to the magisterium far more than the likes of me would ever do, and yet ultimately they refuse to be obedient. If I am "disobedient" it isn't inconsistent with my fairly "progressive" understanding of the Church; if they are disobedient it undermines everything they claim to stand for.

Very well put.

SSPX are heretics and apostates....just like those of the Novus Ordo counterfeit-catholics!

The danger is not confined to one Church.... This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord's flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven.

- St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-ca. 379), Epistlae 92 (in ca. 372)

Sad, but true, history does....and is repeating itself!

"SSPX are heretics and apostates....just like those of the Novus Ordo counterfeit-catholics!"

Thus spake Pope Joansknight. Bow down and worship !! (Popcorn anyone ?)

SSPX are heretics and apostates

I'd be interested to know why you think so. They also reject Vatican II. Is it because they apparently think they can be reconciled to the church, so long as the church basically says they're right?

Is the Vatican II sect the Whore of Babylon prophesied in the Apocalypse?



Apocalypse 17:4- "And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication."



None of the points which follow are necessary to prove that the Vatican II sect and its antipopes are not Catholic. The doctrinal evidence covered throughout this book proves this in detail. However, the points which follow are interesting and enlightening as they help to further explain why this catastrophic crisis is occurring, and what to make of it.



Apocalypse 17:1: "And there came one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials, and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will show thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters..."



Chapters 17 and 18 of the Apocalypse make striking prophecies about the “great harlot” or the “Whore of Babylon” which will arise in the last days from the city of seven hills. Rome was constructed on seven hills. This is why throughout history Rome has been identified as the city of seven hills mentioned in the Apocalypse. Based on this, Protestants throughout the centuries have accused the Catholic Church of being the Whore of Babylon. But the Protestants are wrong, of course, because the Catholic Church is the immaculate Bride of Christ, the one true Church He founded. What the Whore of Babylon describes, however, is a counterfeit Bride – a Counter-Catholic Church – which arises in the last days in order to deceive Catholics (the true faithful), tread upon the faith and commit spiritual fornication.



1. The whore sits upon many waters.

As we saw already, the great harlot sits upon many waters. The Apocalypse clues us in as to what these waters are.

Apocalypse 17:15- "And he said to me: The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and nations, and tongues."

"Peoples, nations, and tongues" are suggestive of global influence, something which has influence in all ends of the earth. Immediately Rome and the Catholic Church come to mind. The Catholic Church’s universal mission has incorporated faithful from all peoples, nations and tongues.

Pope Pius XII, Fidei donum (# 46), April 21, 1957: “Now, our holy Mother the Church is indeed the Mother ‘of all nations, of all peoples, as well as of individual persons…”1

And since Rome is the headquarters of the universal Church, if Rome were taken over by an antipope who imposed a new religion, it could then influence almost all of the peoples, nations and tongues into its spiritual infidelity. That is why the harlot sits upon peoples, nations and tongues. In fact, the Council of Trent infallibly confirms our hunch – that the waters upon which the harlot sits are connected with the almost universal expanse that a final days, counterfeit Catholic Church would have if an antipope or set of antipopes successfully overtook Rome – with alarming specificity.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Session 22, On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: "The holy synod then admonishes priests that it has been prescribed by the Church to mix water with the wine to be offered in the chalice, not only because the belief is that Christ the Lord did so, but also because there came from His side water together with blood, since by this mixture the sacrament is recalled. And since in the Apocalypse of the blessed John the peoples are called waters Apoc. 17:1, 15, the union of the faithful people with Christ, their head, is represented."2

Notice that the Council of Trent infallibly declares that the waters of Apoc. 17:1,15 represent the union of the faithful people with Christ; in other words, the Catholic Church. The great harlot sits upon these waters! Therefore, it is of the Catholic faith that the great harlot sits upon the Catholic Church, that is, she impedes, obstructs, suppresses and attempts to substitute for her. This is a perfect description of the false Church that arose with Vatican Council II, which has successfully deceived most of the world into thinking that it is the true Catholic Church.

Understanding that the "waters" of the Apocalypse represent the peoples, nations, and tongues of the Catholic Church, could be the key to understanding other important verses in this book. For example, Apoc. 18:17 talks about how the shipmasters and the mariners wept over the destruction of the great city.

Apocalypse 18:17- "For in one hour are so great riches come to nought; and every shipmaster, and all that sail into the lake, and mariners, and as many as work in the sea, stood afar off, And cried, seeing the place of her burning, saying: What city is like to this great city?"

The shipmasters, mariners and those that work in the sea represent those who work with souls in the Catholic Church; that is, priests, religious, etc. They weep over the desolation of Rome and wonder how in such a short time she has been brought down.

2. The whore sits upon the city of seven mountains.

Apocalypse 17:9- "And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings."

As stated already, Rome was constructed on seven hills. Since the great harlot sits upon the city of seven hills, the great harlot sits upon Rome itself – the center of unity in the Catholic Church and the home of the Roman Pontiffs.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica Constitutio (# 4), June 26, 1749:
"... the Catholic Church is signified by the City of Rome alone, in which the bodily presence of this Apostle Peter is carefully reverenced..."3

Interestingly, Rome only gives way to the great harlot in the last days – i.e., after the Vatican II revolution. This is why the harlot is only mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse. And this is why Sacred Scripture speaks of the "fall" of Babylon.

Apocalypse 18:2- "And he cried out with a loud strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird."

Babylon has historically been regarded as a code name for Rome.

1 Peter 5:13- "The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark."

Scripture scholars understand that St. Peter was writing this epistle from Rome, which he calls “Babylon.” Therefore, Rome is Babylon and Babylon has fallen. But if it has fallen, then it once stood strongly. And is this not true? For prior to its fall, Rome (Babylon) was the bulwark of Catholicism and the center of Christianity - the great city.

Apocalypse 17:18- "And the woman which thou sawest, is the great city, which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth."

Some may ask: "If Rome is the 'great city,' why does Apocalypse 11:8 say that the great city is the place where Our Lord was crucified, which is Jerusalem?" The answer is that it doesn’t actually say that:

Apoc. 11:8 - “the two witnesses shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, even where their Lord was crucified.”

Notice that, contrary to what some have claimed, the Apocalypse doesn’t clearly state that the two witnesses (which some believe describe Peter and Paul) are killed in the city where Our Lord was crucified. Notice that the passage could very well mean that the great city is called Sodom and Egypt even where their Lord was crucified. In other words, the great city, Rome, is referred to as “Sodom” and “Egypt” as far away as Jerusalem (where their Lord was crucified) because of its immoralities! This makes sense when we consider that Rome was notorious for its corruption. Hence, this passage doesn’t clearly prove, as some have suggested, that Jerusalem must be the great city.

Another consideration is that the Mystical Body of Christ is being crucified in and from Rome at present, so in that sense it would also be accurate to say that Rome is the place where Our Lord is crucified in His Mystical Body.

The great city is Rome. Historically, no other city has ruled over the kings of the Earth as has Rome, which has a spiritual and ecclesiastical primacy which all nations must be subject to.

Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 6), May 24, 1824:
"Come therefore to this holy Jerusalem, a priestly and royal city which the sacred seat of Peter has made the capitol of the world. Truly it rules more widely by divine religion than by earthly domination."4

And whether the kings of the earth want to accept it or not, all human creatures must be subject to the spiritual power of the Catholic Church, which (when there is a true pope) is exercised from Rome.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff."5

So the fall of the great city is the fall of Rome from the Catholic faith. It’s not the fall of the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church can exist without Rome. It can be reduced to a remnant, just as it is predicted by Our Lord when He speaks about the end of the world (Luke 18:8). Rome, on the other hand, can't exist without Catholicism. Without it, she becomes nothing more than “the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird” (Apoc. 18:2).

Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846, an approved apparition of the Catholic Church: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ.”

3. The whore is a woman.

Apocalypse 17:6-7 -"And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration. And the angel said to me: Why dost thou wonder? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast which carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."

If it is true that the Whore of Babylon is the phony Catholic Church that began with the Vatican II revolution (as the evidence in this book overwhelmingly shows), it would make sense that this apocalyptic entity is described as a woman, in order to contrast her with another woman – her antithesis – the Catholic Church.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: "'One is my dove, my perfect one. One she is of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' Cant. 6:8; which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God."6

4. The whore is a mother.

Apocalypse 17:5- "And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth."

Catholics have always referred to the Church as their mother.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 16), June 29, 1896:
"Let us love the Lord our God; let us love His Church; the Lord as our Father, the Church as our Mother."7

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928:
"For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, 'the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful'?"8

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29, 1943:
"Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate..."9

In fact, the Roman Church is specifically called the “mother and mistress” of all the churches (i.e. all the particular churches in communion with the universal Catholic Church).

Pope Leo XIII, Exeunte Iam Anno (# 2), Dec. 25, 1888:
"… the Roman Church, mother and mistress of all Churches..."10

It’s quite obvious that the Apocalypse describes the Whore of Babylon as the “mother of the fornications” because the Counter Church overtakes Rome, where a true pope normally presides over the Mother Church. Rome has become the mother fornicator in an almost universal counterfeit Catholic Church of the last days. And we see this in action: the apostasy and spiritual fornication of the Counter Church starts in Rome and then spreads to all of the local churches in the counterfeit sect. For example: the religious indifferentism practiced in Rome is spread to the rest of the false Church.

Thus, as the Catholic Church is our loving Mother, the whore is the Mother of the fornications. And as the Catholic Church is the Mother of all Christ's faithful, the whore is the Mother of Christ's unfaithful, that is, those who have abandoned the Church and accepted the new Vatican II religion.

5. The whore is clothed in purple and scarlet.

Apocalypse 17:4- "And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication."

Apocalypse 18:16- "And saying: Alas! alas! that great city, which was clothed with fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and was gilt with gold, and precious stones, and pearls."

This is perhaps one of the most revealing verses in the Apocalypse. In the Catholic Church, bishops wear purple and cardinals wear scarlet (red)! Notice that they are clothed “round about” (around their waists) in these colors.

Cardinals (in scarlet at the top) and bishops (in purple at the bottom) at the Vatican

By choosing to describe the Whore of Babylon as a woman “clothed with fine linen, and purple, and scarlet,” God is giving us a clear indication that the whore is clothed in the colors of the true episcopate and cardinalate. God is giving us a clear indication that the whore is clothed in these colors because externally she gives all the appearances of being the true Church of Christ – she has dioceses, a hierarchy, the property of the Church, vestments, ceremonies, "sacraments," a "pope," etc. – but inwardly she is a fraud. This is a perfect description of the Church of the Vatican II sect, the end-time Counter Church, which is clothed with the colors of Catholicism (and appears to most to be just that) but inwardly is a false apostate religion.

6. The whore has a golden cup in her hand.

Apocalypse 17:4- "And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication."

Priests offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Catholic Church are required to use a chalice of gold, if possible. It's no coincidence that the whore has a golden cup in her hand. The whore, as usual, is mimicking, acting and pretending to be the Catholic Church; but she is not. A Catholic priest offers the golden chalice full of the Precious Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The whore offers a cup (chalice) full of abomination and filthiness – the invalid wine of the New Mass!

In particular, this verse is referring to the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Mass), which does not contain the Blood of Jesus Christ, but an offering which is an abomination in His sight.

Apocalypse 18:6- "Render to her as she also hath rendered to you; and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her."

The word mingle means to mix.11 In the Catholic Mass, the Church mingles the water with the wine in the chalice.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo": "For blessed Alexander, the fifth Pope after blessed Peter, says: 'In the offerings of the sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of Masses, let only bread and wine mixed with water be offered as a sacrifice. For either wine alone or water alone must not be offered in the chalice of the Lord, but both mixed, because it is read that both, that is, blood and water, flowed from the side of Christ.' Then also, because it is fitting to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the Christian people with Christ. For water signifies the people, according to the passage in the Apocalypse: 'the many waters... are many people' Apoc. 17:15... Therefore, when wine and water are mixed in the chalice the people are made one with Christ, and the multitude of the faithful is joined and connected with Him in whom it believes."12

The symbolism of Apocalypse 18:6 – mingling in a cup – couldn’t be more obvious without giving away the mystery of the verse. It's an obvious reference to the Mass, which has been completely perverted by the harlot. She has nothing left to offer to God in her cup but filthiness and abomination (Apoc. 17:4). Furthermore, this verse (18:6) points to a specific point in the Mass, the mixing of wine and water. This action of mixing signifies the union of the Christian people with Christ (the Catholic Church), as Pope Eugene IV defined at the Council of Florence. As we have shown, this is the precise signification which has been removed from the consecration of the New Mass, rendering it invalid!

In one and the same verse, therefore, God is revealing that the whore is conducting massive spiritual fornication in areas which regard the Catholic Mass and the Catholic Church as a whole. It is a startling description of the Vatican II sect: the end-time Counter-Church.

7. The whore is characterized by fornication and whoredom.

Apocalypse 17:1-2- "Come, I will show thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters, With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and they who inhabit the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her whoredom."

Apocalypse 18:3- "Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies."

It’s simply a fact that when the term fornication is used in Holy Scripture, many times it describes idolatry and spiritual infidelity.

Exodus 34:16- “Neither shalt thou take of their daughters to wife for thy son, lest after they themselves have committed fornication, they make thy sons also to commit fornication with their gods.”

Judges 2:17- “Committing fornication with strange gods, and adoring them. They quickly forsook the way, in which their fathers had walked: and hearing the commandments of the Lord, they did all things contrary.”

Many other passages could be given to show that Scripture describes spiritual infidelity and idolatry as fornication, whoredom and harlotry. When a “great harlot” committing world-wide fornication is spoken of in this context, it clearly indicates apostasy from the one true Faith. As we have proven in this book, apostasy from the one true Faith and an acceptance of false gods/idolatrous religions is exactly what most characterizes the Vatican II Counter Church and the Vatican II apostasy. It has put the demonic “gods” of the pantheon of world religions on a par with the true God of the Catholic Church.

This fornication which begins from apostate Rome and its antipopes (above) has been spread and imbibed all over the Earth (below), as we’ve shown.

The Whore of Babylon is guilty of spiritual fornication to such an extent that this is the action which characterizes her title - the "great harlot." By such a description, God is directly contrasting the whore with the Catholic Church; for the Church is a woman who is characterized by her unwavering fidelity to her Spouse, Jesus Christ.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: "During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: 'The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.'"13

So just as the whore is notorious for her impurity, the Catholic Church is known for her chastity.

Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem to Himerius, Feb. 10, 385: "And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle Eph. 5:27 as He instituted her through His apostle."14

The Church is "the immaculate Bride of Christ." The "great harlot" represents nothing but the greatest mockery of the immaculate Bride of Christ in history.

Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: "...Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured His holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world."15



8. The whore has separated from her Spouse.

Apocalypse 18:7- "As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see."

In another amazing verse, the Apocalypse tells us that the whore says to herself, “I sit a queen and am no widow.” She isn't a widow because her (former) Spouse is not dead.

Apocalypse 1:17-18- "And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living forever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell."

The Church’s Spouse is Jesus Christ. The whore, being a counterfeit Church that has broken from the Catholic Church, therefore had Jesus Christ as her Spouse until she separated herself from Jesus Christ by leaving His traditions and teachings. Instead of being a faithful spouse, the whore has become her own queen, who is happy imposing on others her own will and glory, her own teachings and religion.

But whereas the whore has separated herself from the Catholic Church by forming a religion and a “Church” of her own, the Bride of Christ – the Catholic Church – always maintains union with Her Spouse, even if most of the world has left her to join the whore.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 89), June 29, 1943:
"This opinion is false; for the divine Redeemer is most closely united not only with His Church, which is His beloved Spouse, but also with each and every one of the faithful, and He ardently desires to speak with them heart to heart, especially after Holy Communion."16



9. The light of the lamp shall shine no more in the whore.

Apocalypse 18:23- "And the light of the lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth, for all nations have been deceived by thy enchantments."

The "light of the lamp" is a reference to the sanctuary lamp found in Catholic churches. This lamp signifies Christ's real presence in the Eucharist. This lamp can hardly be found in Vatican II churches. In most cases, it has been moved to the side or to the back of the church. But more than the displacement of the sanctuary lamp, Apocalypse 18:23 is indicating that Christ's real presence (the valid Eucharist) is no longer found in the Vatican II Church.

"The voice of the bridegroom and the bride" in Apocalypse 18:23 is a reference to Christ and His Church.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 86), June 29, 1943: "… he St. Paul brings Christ and His Mystical Body into a wonderfully intimate union, he nevertheless distinguishes one from the other as Bridegroom and Bride (Eph. 5:22-23)."17

If there were any doubt about who the Bridegroom and the Bride are, Pope Pius XII obliterates it by quoting St. Paul. Jesus Christ is the Bridegroom, and His Mystical Body, the Church, is His immaculate Bride. When the Apocalypse makes reference to the voice of the Bridegroom and the Bride, it’s another confirmation that the Whore of Babylon is the Vatican II sect – the Counter Church, which has abandoned the teaching (or voice) of the Bridegroom (Jesus Christ) and of the Bride (His Church).

10. The voice of the pipe is no longer heard in the whore.

Apocalypse 18:22- "And the voice of harpers, and of musicians, and of them that play on the pipe, and on the trumpet, shall no more be heard at all in thee..."

Few people today know that "trumpets and harps were the standard instruments for liturgical music in St. John's day, as organs are today in the west."18 By including the three primary instruments of Catholic liturgical music throughout history, St. John is warning us that traditional Catholic liturgical music as a whole will "no more be heard at all" in the whore. And hasn't this come true?

We’ve already shown that since Vatican II, Gregorian chant, our beautiful musical tradition, has been replaced by every type of secular music and instrument under the sun.

It's so bad now that one could enter a modern "Catholic" Church and hear anything from boisterous drums to electric guitars. One could walk into one of these churches and even be subjected to rock music. Yet, what's perhaps most disappointing about all of this is that most people don't realize that these modern "Catholic" churches aren't Catholic at all, but belong entirely to the Whore of Babylon.

11. All the world is drunk with the wine of her whoredom.

Apocalypse 18:3- "Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her."

Apocalypse 14:8- "And another angel followed, saying: That great Babylon is fallen, is fallen; which made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

Apocalypse 16:19- "And great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the indignation of His wrath."

Apocalypse 17:1-2- "Come, I will shew thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters. With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the wine of her whoredom."

The Whore of Babylon is condemned repeatedly for fornication having to do with wine. Why? As we’ve shown, it’s the change to the wine portion of the consecration that renders the New Mass invalid!

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5: "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the new wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament."

The reason that the whore is condemned for wine violations is because invalidating changes have been made to the WINE PORTION of the words of consecration in the New Mass. See the earlier section on the New Mass for the full discussion. These changes to the wine portion of the consecration invalidate both consecrations. The Vatican II Church has truly "made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" (Apoc. 14:8).

12. The whore is drunk with the blood of the saints and martyrs.

Pope Leo XIII, Au milieu des sollicitudes (#11), Feb. 16, 1892: “Many times… Christians, by the mere fact of their being such, and for no other reason, were forced to choose between apostasy and martyrdom, being allowed no alternative.”19

Apocalypse 17:6- "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered when I had seen her, with great admiration."

Apocalypse 18:24- "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."

The whore can be said to be drunk with the blood of the saints on many levels. The first that comes to mind is ecumenism as it is practiced by the Vatican II sect. Prior to Vatican II, ecumenism referred to the apostolic endeavor to convert the world to Catholicism. Today, it refers to the effort to bring all religions together as one without conversion, while respecting all religions as essentially equal.

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede (# 15), Dec. 8, 1892:
"Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God."20

Ecumenism goes directly against the divinely revealed truth that the gods of the non-Catholic religions are devils (Psalm 95:5; 1 Cor. 10:20), and it puts Christ on a level with Lucifer. Throughout this book we’ve exposed the false ecumenism of the Vatican II sect. The Vatican II sect considers false religions more or less good and praiseworthy. Thus, it blasphemes the memory of the saints and martyrs whose flesh was torn with iron hooks, bodies were fed to the lions, and heads were chopped off because they refused to compromise their faith one iota or say that “all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy.” It also mocks all the sacrifices of all the saints who gave up their lives for the priesthood, for religious life, for missionary work. All of it was unnecessary, according to the Vatican II sect.

Pope St. Gregory the Great: "The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved."21

Because Margaret Clitherow refused to accept the Anglican sect and its “Mass” – but rather invited Catholic priests into her home against the penal laws – she was martyred by being crushed to death under a large door loaded with heavy weights. This style of execution is so painful that it is called “severe and harsh punishment.” She suffered it all because she wouldn’t accept Anglicanism. The Vatican II sect, however, teaches that Anglicans are fellow “Christians” who don’t need conversion, and whose invalid “bishops” are actually true bishops of the Church of Christ. The Vatican II sect teaches that her martyrdom was pointless. It is thus drunk with the blood of the saints and martyrs.

How many martyrs, such as St. Thomas More, gave their lives for one article of the Catholic faith? Ecumenism renders their blood-shedding acts worthless, pointless and meaningless.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 8), June 29, 1896: "It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point."22

This is why the Vatican II Church is said to be drunk with the blood of martyrs and of saints (Apoc. 17:6; 18:24), and all those who support this antichrist activity now headed by Benedict XVI are drunk as well.

What’s also fascinating is that the Apocalypse mentions that the martyrs cried out from under the altar.

Apocalypse 6:9- “And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried out with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the Earth?”

It is prescribed that Catholic Mass is to be said on altars which contain the relics of martyrs! Thus, it makes perfect sense that the martyrs, whose lives are being mocked by the Vatican II sect’s ecumenism and endorsement of false religions, are crying out from “under the altar”! They are crying out not only at the interreligious ecumenism which mocks their lives, but also at the liturgical abominations which occur directly over their relics in the New Mass. This striking point from Scripture should also show Protestants that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

Apocalypse 18:20, God's Judgment on the Whore- "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her."

Conclusion on the Whore of Babylon

It's quite obvious, in our opinion, that the Vatican II sect is the Whore of Babylon prophesied in Scripture. And contrary to what the Protestant heretics believe, the fact that ecclesiastical Rome's apostasy from the Catholic faith in the last days is predicted in Scripture proves rather than disproves the authenticity of the Catholic Church. For the tribulation of the last days will be one which focuses on deceiving the true faithful, and undermining the true Faith.

Apocalypse 11:2- "But the court, which is without the temple, cast out, and measure it not: because it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city they shall tread under foot two and forty months."

It should be noted that "two and forty months" (Apoc. 11:2), "a thousand two hundred and sixty days" (Apoc. 12:6), and "a time, and times, and half a time" (Apoc. 12:14) and 3 and 1/2 years are regarded by some scholars as symbolic of any period of persecution.

Luke 21:34-35- "And take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly. For as a snare it shall come upon all that sit upon the face of the whole earth."

A snare is a device used to catch animals. Now, if the snare of the last days involves a counterfeit Catholic Church set up from Rome, and a spiritual invasion of the holy city (Rome), then the "animal" that the devil is trying to catch is Traditional Catholicism. This is another proof that the Catholic religion is the one and only true religion.

It is our hope that this scriptural evidence against the Vatican II Church will strengthen Catholics in their opposition to it. The biblical prophecies which pinpoint our present situation also enable Catholics to have a better understanding of how God views the developments and events of the last 50 or so years.

But most of all, the Apocalypse uncovers the false resistance to this apostasy, even among the so-called traditionalists, who advocate a position in reference to this harlot church which demands that they remain united to its antipopes and the Vatican II sect. Such a false "We resist you..." places them right in the very bosom and womb of the harlot. By their own profession, they are still obstinately united to the "mother of the fornications." They still confuse the great harlot with the immaculate Bride of Christ. They still taint a pure and unsullied resistance to the harlot by sticking themselves in the midst of her abominable dominion.

Apocalypse 18:4-5- "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities."

If they don’t completely break with the great harlot, these people will lose their souls in the eternal fire for blaspheming the Church of Christ the King, which has no fellowship with the works of darkness, no part with the unbeliever, and no concord with the woman of iniquity. Though much of the world has been engulfed by the great harlot, the immaculate Bride of Our Lord still exists in all her purity, though she has been reduced to a remnant and forced underground. This woman, the remnant Catholic Church in the last days, is described in chapter 12 of the Apocalypse after the vision of the woman clothed with the sun, Our Lady of Fatima.

Apocalypse 12:6- "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred and sixty days."

Apocalypse 12:14- "And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."

If we have not joined already, we must enter this remnant Catholic Church in the wilderness. We must maintain "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3), and come closer to God by receiving the true sacraments, and practicing devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the holy rosary.

Apocalypse 12:17- "And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Apocalypse 12:12- "Here is the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."

Endnotes for Section 44:



1 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 327.

2 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 945.

3 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 28.

4 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 206.

5 Denzinger 468.

6 Denzinger 468.

7 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 403.

8 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 318.

9 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 50.

10 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 403.

11 The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, Second edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985, p. 538.

12 Denzinger 698.

13 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.

14 Denzinger 89.

15 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 133.

16 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 55.

17 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 54.

18 Scott Hahn, The Lamb's Supper, Doubleday, 1999, p. 120.

19 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 279.

20 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 304.

21 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.

22 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 392.

Nope.

>351 Joansknight: This looks very much like an evangelical protestant literalist interpretation of scripture without any understanding of what apocalyptic literature is. The Catholic Church has always taken a more sophisticated view of interpreting the bible.

Revelations strikes me as in some sense the most literal of books. Other books tend to be simple, but open-ended. Revelations strikes me as "complex," but in fact rather simple—the "hidden" meaning is that the Roman empire is very bad. By trying to be clever, it's in a way the least clever of them all.

~351

Hey, how about that, Joansknight can cut and paste !! (Presumably without copyright violations...........)

Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema.

- Vatican Council

>351 Joansknight: This looks very much like an evangelical protestant literalist interpretation of scripture without any understanding of what apocalyptic literature is. The Catholic Church has always taken a more sophisticated view of interpreting the bible.

Your church is NOT the Catholic Church though John!

Hey, how about that, Joansknight can cut and paste !! (Presumably without copyright violations...........)

My error....What Really Happened to The Catholic Church After Vatican II, Bro. Michael Dimond

>356 Joansknight: The Catholic Church has always taken a more sophisticated view ...

Your church is NOT the Catholic Church though John!

When I say "always" I don't mean post-1958, I mean the Catholic Church through the ages.

~356

Very good. You can quote and you can rant (although the rants are not grammatical). What are your other gifts?

“In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.” (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.)

Liturgical Reform, having as one of its basic principles the abolition of all mystical acts and formulations, insists upon the usage of modern languages for the divine service.... Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the heart of all enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond that unites Catholics throughout the world, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. They consider it the most powerful arm of the Papacy.... We must admit that it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to a profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one's work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks in the marketplace. How long do you think the faithful will go to hear these self-styled liturgists cry "The Lord be with you" and how long will they continue to respond "and with your spirit"?

- Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., Liturgical Institutions, vol. 1, chapter IV "The Antiliturgical Heresy," (1840)

>360 Joansknight: Liturgical Reform, having as one of its basic principles the abolition of all mystical acts and formulations

This is not one of the "basic principles" of liturgical reform.

Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the heart of all enemies of Rome

Whether or not that was true in 1840 I don't know, but I doubt very much whether it figures in the hearts of "enemies of Rome" (whatever that means) nowadays.

The good Dom then goes on to mix two completely different arguments against Latin. He assumes that, because "enemies of Rome" hate Latin, therefore all the faithful Catholics who want to worship in the vernacular are also enemies. Even Catholics who prefer to worship in the vernacular don't necessarily hate Latin, they simply prefer the vernacular.

>359 Joansknight:

It's bad enough that you resort to cutting and pasting. But do you have to repeat your paste within the same message thread?

listen to what is being said in the way one speaks in the marketplace

St. Jerome clearly erred in translating the Greek Bible into the "language of the marketplace," the regular, vulgar Latin of his time. He should have translated it into classical Latin, or kept it in Greek. And Jesus clearly erred in teaching in Aramaic, the "language of the marketplace," not Hebrew.

Well, Jesus should have taught in classical Latin! Nevermind the fact that neither Jesus nor the disciples would have actually known the language.

Of course, everybody knows what Jesus actually taught in was Jacobean English.

What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the difinition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.

- Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

It is far easier to live a lie, than to live the Truth....

It is far simpler to be lead by Satan, than to follow Christ....

~Fr. Gabriel Arthur Main

SSPX probably not coming in:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/concili...

"The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters."
--St. Nicholas of Flue, in Catholic Prophecy, edited by Yves Dupont, p. 30

"The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other sacraments."
--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 64, ad. 3

This is exactly what the counterfeit-catholic church has accomplished....

"I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments, and smite her with remorse for her historic past."
--Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, to Count Enrico P. Galeazzi

"...the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. ... Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists."
--Pope Saint Pius X, Letter "Our Apostolic Mandate" to the French Episcopate, 1910

Fulfilled by the counterfeit- catholic church....

>368 Joansknight: "The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in governing the Church"

And yet Sedevacantists reject the successors of the apostles, God's vicars...

You just don't get it, do you John....a manifest heretic can not be pope....or a Catholic for that matter....they do not reject Christ's vicars...there are none to reject! You do not belong to the Catholic Church....you belong to, and follow the doctrines of the NEW WORLD ORDER church, that embraces all religions and has its own doctrines and deceives by calling itself Catholic!

Ignorance and arrogance are NOT excuses for believing you know the TRUTH....which alone is Christ and ONLY through His Church and its doctrines can salvation be attained....NOT through modernism, liberalism and most assuredly NOT through the false religions and doctrines of man!

Pope Gregory XVI: “But later even more care was required when the Lutherans and Calvinists dared to oppose the changeless doctrine of the faith with an almost incredible variety of errors. They left no means untried to deceive the faithful with perverse explanations of the sacred books…” (Inter Paecipuas #4, May 8, 1844)

John, is this an example of the Christians you would like me to consider in determining whether Christian Scriptures are fantasies cited by hypocrites?

If a church wanted to be
the church of a "New World ORder" and
to "embrace all religions",
why would it want to deceive
people lnto thinking that it
was "Catholic"?
I do realize that the word 'catholic" means, originally, "universal". But Catholics, have not, historically, been
very ecumenical-minded, and hence less likely to morph into a would-be "New World Order".

And I would think that the last thing such a would-be
"New WORLD Order" would
want is the name of one of
the old denominations.

We found subtle ways of changing the words and dignifying these changes with decent, hopeful, positive expressions,

It was a revolution ... we were literally changing the faith of the Catholic Church because we were changing the way it prays.

Never in the history of the Catholic Church has there been such a revolutionary change in the Mass (and the rest of the Liturgy) as has occurred since the 1960s. Has it been a harmful revolution? Indeed it has! Millions of Catholics have stopped practising their faith in this period, tens of thousands of priests have quit the priesthood, religious orders are dying, and whole new currents of heretical opinion are flowing through the surviving Church.

- Fr. Stephen Somerville, a member of the original ICEL commission that created the English New Order Mass in the 1960's

>375 Joansknight: But you provide no evidence that the changes which took place after Vatican II are the cause of the effects which you mention. Disaffection with the Church was already there, which is one of the reasons why it was necessary to have an ecumenical council. Who is to say that disaffection with the Church would not have been far worse if some of the prior problems were not alleviated by Vatican II?

It's a dumb dog that doesn't bark when the wolf is among the sheep!

- Pope St. Gregory the Great, In Ez. Hom. 7

Pope Leo XIII: “Miserable it is to live in a barbarous state and with savage manners: but more miserable to lack the knowledge of that which is highest, and to dwell in ignorance of the one true God.” (Quarto abeunte saeculo #4, July 16, 1892)

John....it wasn't dissatisfaction with the Church....It was Satan's master plan to destroy the Church....which he can not do....he can though change the hearts of man....causing man to sin and turn away from Christ and His Church! Do you not think that is in Satan's power....do you not think he can deceive millions....causing man to sin?

Now Joansknight speaks for Satan as well as for G-d. Nice to be versatile.

>379 Joansknight:

Given how many well-written passages you cut and paste, it's surprising to find your last message eaten-up by ungrammatical ellipses.

Tim....you mock and ridicule me, which is fine (and not very Christian I might add) but even worse, you mock and ridicule Christ's Church....not even John does that!

No, I was just mocking you. I do, however have a very low opinion of your conspiracy-minded, anti-semitic, profoundly heretical "monastery," founded by a non-monk and lacking even a single bishop or—correct me if I'm wrong—a priest! The church of Christ exists. It is a worldwide organization of millions, following thousands of bishops and in union with the Bishop of Rome, not a bunch of UFO-ologists and mason-obsessed heretics in Nebraska.

Tim....you are so decieved by Satan....If you despise Christ's Church so much and embrace Judaism why don't you become a member of the Jewish faith? I have never encountered so much hate for someone who claims he is a follower of Christ, but doesn't even act Christian towards others....the Jews reject Christ....you embrace that false religion....therefore you reject Christ!

You ever notice how much you and your fellow counterfeit-Catholics mention anti-pope Benedict's name over Jesus'? In all your posts, you have NEVER even typed or mentioned Jesus our Lord....but Benedict XVI....you do not hesitate to mention or place in such high regard....man over God, how Christian is that?

Actually, I've referred to Jesus by name in 356 messages on LibraryThing, and to Benedict in only 35. And, yeah, I regard Holocaust denial as anti-semitic. If that makes me Jewish, so be it.

I do not deny the holocaust....you think I do....It sounds to me like you deny the Catholic holocaust in 16th and 17th century England! More Catholics have been raped, tortured, persecuted and murdered then Jews! You DENY that! What I do NOT do is embrace the Jewish religion! I am a follower of Christ and His Church....your Benedict embraces the Jewish religion, and other false religions for that matter....he is an apostate and a manifest heretic!

You NEVER have referred to Christ in the posts I have seen....you HAVE just referred to the Jews!

Now we're getting down to the essence. You are a Jew, Tim. John is a Jew. We're all Jews, but only some of us are aware of that fact.

This may be my last post before the all powerful and all knowing Tim Spalding suspends me....here goes:

Pope Pius IX: “It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error.” (Quartus Supra #6, Jan. 6, 1873)

Do you feel persecuted?

>387 lawecon:

For what it's worth, Lawecon, you can't be a Christian, and certainly not a Catholic, and believe that Judaism is a simply a "false religion." The total rejection of Judaism—for example by Marcion and of many flavors of Gnosticism—is a heresy. While Christian theology distinguishes between the people of Israel and others, Christians certainly believe we worship the same God.

>388 Joansknight: This may be my last post before the all powerful and all knowing Tim Spalding suspends me

joansknight, nobody is objecting to what you post on this thread, although most of us disagree with you quite profoundly, and as I have said often before I would love to hear your own views and explanations of things rather than just quotes which I mostly accept anyway as they are part of Catholic tradition. The complaints about you are on another thread where your posts do seem rather out of place and could be construed as trolling.

>387 lawecon:: Jews reject Christ and that is just fine with you....so Jews and Catholics do NOT worship the same God!

~390

Thank you, Oh Theologian. I will take your comments for what they are worth.

Your theology is warped Tim and yes, you are a heretic!

Jews reject Christ and that is just fine with you....so Jews and Catholics do NOT worship the same God!

Again, this is the heresy of Marcion. It is explicitly contradicted dozens of places in St. Paul and elsewhere—why Marcion's Bible was so heavily edited. It was Catholic doctrine long before Vatican II. The last time this theology surfaced it was in Germany in the 1930s—among Protestants; the Catholic church explicitly disavowed it.

"Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." Romans 3:27ff.