“The Fight Against the “Spirit” of Vatican II??”

“The Fight Against the “Spirit” of Vatican II??”

Laymen’s Guide: Expose on Pseudo-Traditionalism 

Even, however, if we leave it to God and to Peter’s true successors to sit in judgment of these things, it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed. 
Archbishop Lefebvre (I Accuse the Council)

Archbishop Lefebvre:
"The Conciliar Church is
heretical & schismatic"

In this modernist crisis of the Church (Vatican II) I have explained how there is “essentially” 4 groups of positions maintained which the average laymen must find themselves deliberating upon. The modernist that holds to Vatican II (some still think it is a dogmatic Council) who thinks we are in a new springtime; the pseudo-traditionalist(s)/conservatives (cloaked modernists; who come in varying degrees) stating the Council “was not all bad” and just needs clarification; the hard line traditionalists (who reject Vatican II wholesale/ recognize we have had modernist Popes to be later judged for teaching heresy) and the sedevacantists who reject Vatican II wholesale and state (due to “ipso facto” loss of office we have had no Pope since the Council). Note: There are broader distinquishments to be made between the varying positions but for brevity sake we want to focus upon this sole impotent argument of the pseudo traditionalist camp(s). Let us further expose the pseudo-traditionalist position and how illogical it is.

Argument- “We are not fighting the Council (it is valid) as a whole or all texts themselves we are fighting the spirit of Vatican II”  You will hear this impotent argument coming out of the varying pseudo traditionalist camps (the Neo-SSPX included) but let us logically ask ourselves a question. If the Council’s spirit was bad how could a “bad spirit” produce orthodox or traditional texts? The Holy Ghost is 100 percent truth not 95 percent truth as the Neo-SSPX implies in their new position on Vatican II. We know the Council was not dogmatic and not an act of the solemn Magesterium but how does this pseudo traditionalist argument fly in light of logic? If the Holy Ghost were present at Vatican II there would be no error nor heresy… yet there are. If the Holy Ghost was not present at the Council and the Council “is in error” and “teaches heresy” (religious liberty) how does the Neo-SSPX say we can accept 95% percent of the texts as if we can at all accept the Council?  The answer is a Catholic cannot and hence ‘the Resistance”.

Certain pseudo traditionalists like the Neo-SSPX
believe the Holy Ghost teaches only
95 percent truth (given their position on the
Vatican II texts.)
1 Cor 14: 33:
For God is not the God of dissension...

If the Holy Ghost is not the author of ambiguity and confusion why do these pseudo traditionalists argue as such? Pseudo traditionalists like Michael Matt of the “the Remnant” will argue it is “the liberal media distorting Vatican II”. But does Michael Matt not know that Vatican II taught the liberal heresy of religious liberty that has been previously condemned by the Ordinary infallible Magesterium (*not all that is infallible comes by way of the Extraordinary Magesterium)?  All those in "full communion" with Modernist Rome belong to another religion, therefore, to be out of communion with this Vatican II new religion is a "good thing'. “This Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.” Archbishop Lefebvre  The Pseudo traditionalist groups now including the Neo-SSPX do not do as such.

"The Remnant is poison for your soul"

Verily, it was, and still is not, outside liberals, who “distorted the documents” it was Masons, Modernists, Marxists and liberals themselves who plotted, made the documents and thence interpreted the documents. In laymen’s terms it was the Popes and prelates themselves! “You will recognize the tree by its fruit.” The fruits are before us, evident, clear. The fruits which come from the Second Vatican Council and the post conciliar reforms are bitter fruits, fruits that destroy the Church. When someone tells me, “Do not touch the Council; speak, rather, of the post conciliar reforms,” I reply that those who made the reforms- it was not I who made the reforms – say themselves: “We are making them in the name of the Council. We made the liturgical reform in the name of the Council; we reformed the catechism in the name of the council.” And these are the Church’s authorities. It is they, consequently, who legitimately interpret the Council. Fortunately this operation of exploding the erroneous ideas of the Council has already begun, and begun satisfactorily with the work of Professor Salet in the Courrier de Rome on The Declaration on Religious Liberty. His conclusion is that this declaration is heretical. Archbishop Lefebvre ( I Accuse the Council). Now we have pseudo-traditionalist Bishop Fellay trying to sell his new position that religious liberty as taught by Vatican II “may be able” to be understood in the light of Tradition. This is not true because Vatican II establishes that all men now have a civil/public right to practice whatever religion he chooses and thus places “false religions’ on the same plain as the true religion. It is the unseating of the Social Kingship of Christ (amongst the nations). It is indeed a very grievous heresy coming from the Masonic sect. Can there be any worse heresy that to dethrone our King and place man and his false religions on this same throne as Christ and His only Catholic Faith? Thus this watering down by Bishop Fellay (and the other pseudo trad groups who simply accept "religious liberty") is theological pseudo-trad rubbish and Catholics must resist.

Bishop Fellay handed over a heretical/schismatic
Declaration in 2012 which HAS NEVER OFFICIALLY
been retracted. He is the dissident.

Furthermore, we are not fighting just a “bad spirit’ we are fighting modernists(non-catholics) themselves who carry with them a bad spirit due to their pride.  Thus their new doctrines are not only error but heresy in many cases. These men never held the Catholic  Faith but rather a twisted and gross modernist version thereof (due to the new humanistic philosophy; over inflated human dignity). The texts themselves are proof alone. “The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.” Archbishop Lefebvre  The Neo-SSPX now wants their followers to believe that it is sufficient to say we oppose the “errors” of ecumenism, collegiality and religious liberty’ mixed in with “the need of clarification of ambiguous documents”. But is this sufficient and can a Catholic accept this? The answer is of course not. We are dealing with the pastoral implementation of a new modernist man centered religion which soon ends in the formal unification of all religions (under the banner of Marxist/masonic “absolute equality”). “So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.”  Archbishop Lefebvre  Our lady has warned long enough! The Neo-SSPX and the other pseudo-traditionalist groups do not listen to Our Lady. What is going on the current Society chapels is diabolical and not of God.

John Venari states Vatican II was protestant and a revolution but states "let there be no difference between the SSPX and FSSP (accepts VII)!"
Why? Because now the Neo-SSPX has changed their position on VII.
If you can explain to me how this is logical you will receive a "gold star" to place on your refrigerator

Certain pseudo traditionalists (Chris Ferrera included) argue that they are at war with “the neo-catholics” and yet they are no different. They are every bit as “neo-cat” as the ones they accuse. The Catholic Church has never taught you can commune with modernists and this is exactly what the pseudo-traditionalist camps try to do. They even now get together in their varying positions in a certain “pseudo traditionalist ecumenism” which Archbishop Lefebvre completely abhorred and told souls to avoid (read the book “Impossible Reconciliation by Fr. Rioult).  "The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity, through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family." Archbishop Lefebvre (Spiritual Journey pg. 9)  Rorate Caeli, the Remnant, Society of St. Pius X/DICI, Michael Voris, Father Zuhlsdorf are all poison for your soul. #EagleoftheWest

TCK Radio: Pseudo Traditionalist Ecumenism

Rebranded= Pseudo-Traditionalism

 Once again ask yourselves how is it logical to assert the “spirit of Vatican II’ was bad yet the texts themselves were not tainted? Here is proof of the new man centered religion which proudly professes this certain self exalted human dignity 12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown. Gaudium st Spes Pope Paul 6th  Thus placing man upon his own throne.  This is blasphemy! This is literally the masonic/satanic principle of self exalted man and yet the pseudo traditionalists argue there are still good in those texts in Vatican II so let us keep it? Nonsense! Catholic teaching states that when one departs “from a part of the whole” he ceases “to be in that whole altogether”.  And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all. James 2: 10   Thus, Vatican II by ceasing in one point (religious liberty) ceases to be Catholic  altogether and therefore must be rejected altogether. Modernists and liberals wrote Vatican II not Catholics and they will be later judged by the Church accordingly. Therefore we must continue to resist by not taking in any part of Vatican 2 NewChurch until the Popes and prelates return to Tradition themselves (outright rejection of the Vatican II Revolution). [Vatican II was] “the letting loose of the forces of evil for the ruin of the Church.” Lefebvre, “The Council or the Triumph of Liberalism” [French], Fideliter, No. 59 (Sept.-Oct. 1987), p.33. And so now we must avoid altogether the Neo-SSPX chapels.

The Pseudo traditionalist camp argues we can call the “Council” legitimate and simply tie ourselves into “the Church” and yet the Catholic Church teaches one cannot tie themselves into heresy let alone a WHOLE NEW RELIGION (there is no intent of these modernists to even convert)! The Pseudo traditionalist camps refuse to believe there is heresy in the Council and hold to the opinion “its not that bad”….this is the current delusional position of the Neo-SSPX which rots away daily now growing like a cancerous tumor upon the Church. “We are not up against a little thing. It is not enough for them to tell us: “You may say the old Mass, but you have to accept it [the Council].” No, it is not only that [the Mass] which divides us, it’s doctrine. That’s clear. Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 66 (Sept.-Oct. 1988), pp.12-14.  The Neo-SSPX is now another hybrid Pseudo Traditionalist outlet stating we can accept the Council as a whole but resist a few errors and ambiguities and fit ourselves into “the Church” (which it is not due to this new modernist religion).

Related Quotes on rejecting novelty & heresy:
http://defeatmodernism.com/tradition-quotes-against-novelty/

In addition, the Pseudo traditionalist camps refuse to believe a “new Church’ has been created and yet the facts state otherwise. We have new rites, new sacraments, new humanistic (masonic) philosophy, new bibles, new catechisms, new mass, new theology, new doctrines,  NewChurch (even admitted by John Paul II). Further, the pseudo traditionalists do not understand the difference between true organic development of doctrine and total rupture from Tradition which ultimately results into a position of error.  Make no mistake Pseudo-Traditionalism is just as erroneous/poisonous as the Sedevacantists they will tell you to stay from.  “This Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, a new church which they call themselves the "Conciliar Church." Archbishop Lefebvre  Are you still not convinced that these pseudo traditionalist groups are “in communion” with not “just a bad spirit” but rather “in communion with a cult of the ungodly”?  Let us see what modernist Pope Paul 6th has said on the “Council”.  But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honour mankind; We have the cult of man. - Address of Paul VI, Council’s Last General Meeting, December 7, 1965, Italian Translation.  Brethren, the cult of man, is FreeMasonry!

"I love me some pseudo-traditionalism.
I love this comfort of
appearing to be in the Church!!"

So how does one argue it is “just a bad spirit” and people gobble it up like delicious Sunday morning pancakes?  It is because it is a more comfortable position. I can appear to be "in the Church' and resist some errors here or there. This is pseudo-resistance and something Fr. Pfluger apparently missed out on in seminary.  This is like St. Athanasius communing with the Arian churches and saying "let us get rid of the error of Arianism". It is illogical and has no basis. You cannot find this position in Catholic teaching nor in our Churches history. We are fighting a whole new religion and I have given only just a few examples as proof.  How does one commune with those who do not hold the Catholic Faith themselves? The answer, is that, these pseudo traditionalist groups/apologists are poisoned themselves, with theological ebola and are rotting.  Our fight is not just against a bad spirit nor just a few errors here or there we are battling a whole new subjectivist man centered religion; a NewChurch loaded with heresy. “I accept the Rome of all time with its doctrine and with its Faith. That is the Rome we are following, but the Modernist Rome which is changing religion? I refuse it and I reject it. And that is the Rome which was introduced into the Council and which is in the process of destroying the Church. I refuse that Church.”  Archbishop Lefebvre  The Neo-SSPX has selfishly distorted and misrepresented who Archbishop Lefebvre was and what he really stood for. 

How did Archbishop Lefebvre answer Bishop Fellay’s/Neo-SSPX’s future new position of “let us enter the Church to make it Catholic” (as illogical and uncatholic as that even sounds…)
“To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.

How did Archbishop Lefebvre refute Bishop Fellay’s/Neo-SSSPX’s future new position on the Conciliar Church being the “visible church” as excuse to re-enter it?
... This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard (another pseudo traditionalist of his times) and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue.

How did Archbishop Lefebvre answer the Neo-SSPX’s claim that it is not necessary to be transparent before the faithful in terms of what they believe?
Bishop Fellay tried hiding his heretical/schismatic Declaration of 2012 and got caught red handed. No wonder they were trying to hide and conceal!
"The Catholic faithful have a strict right to know that the priests to whom they have recourse are not in communion with a counterfeit Church which is evolutionary, pentecostalist, syncretist." (Abp. Lefebvre, Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. Econe, 6th July, 1988.)

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong (but Bishop Fellay does). That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...”

The Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting from these principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church. ... This is how the succession of bishops came about in the early centuries of the Church, in union with Rome, as we are too in union with Catholic Rome and not Modernist Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre 

 

Which one of these Bishops is actually
following what their own founder taught?
Answer; it is not the bishop on the left....

Archbishop Lefebvre sums up what the Neo-SSPX now denies along with the other pseudo traditionalist camps.
"This Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, A NEW CHURCH which they call themselves the "CONCILIAR CHURCH".

Thus the Council itself is heretical. It is the pastoral basis of a NewChurch which soon gives way to an Apostate Church (secular humanism). It is silently schismatic already. When will the pseudo traditionalists recognize the objective facts of the case and realize their position does not hold up to proper Catholic teaching and the examples provided when heresy enters into the Church. Would you enter into a Church where you knew numerous souls were infected with ebola? Then why would you accept/support/commune with these pseudo traditionalist groups who imply you can? They (Vatican II modernists) have the buildings we have the Faith. Thus,the Pseudo traditionalists are “dressed up”  modernists and liberals which vary in degree(s). In the conclusion, Pseudo-Traditionalism, remains more imprudent and dangerous to the soul than sedevacantism of which both are errors.

Have courage fellow Resistants…. fellow eagles….We have been thru a similar storm in the Arian Crisis. Let the words of an earlier “Archbishop Lefebvre” resonate in your soul.

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...

"They have the buildings we have the Faith!"

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." St. Athanasius Doctor & Father of the Church


Related:
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/07/comfort-of-pseudo-traditionalist.html

Father Hesse (Doctorate of Theology/Canon Law):
Vatican II is NOT Council of the Catholic Church