Article & Video
The Resistance
You can download the free MP3 of all of Fr. Hesse’s talks to listen to on your computer or portable audio devices at the following URL:
https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/Audio
https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/Audio
Fr. Hesse, "Exposing the Worst Statements of Vatican II"
A Summary of Fr. Hesse’s talk on
the documents of Vatican II
Fr. Hesse
qualifications: Fr.
Hesse was appointed theologian by the Holy Father, John Paul II. He has his
Doctorate from the Pontifical University in Rome in theology and canon law. Fr.
Hesse spent 15 years in Rome and was the secretary for Cardinal Stickler for 2
years.
Quotations
regarding the unchangeability of the Sacraments:
Canon 13, 7th
Session of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says that the received and
approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn
administrations of the sacraments, may be condemned, or without sin be omitted
at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by any pastor of the churches
whomsoever into new ones; let him be anathema.” Some translations in English
mistranslate as “…or be changed by any pastor of the churches into new ones…”.
The word ‘whomsoever’ includes the Pope himself who is the Prime Minister
(pastor). Latin: per quem
cumque Ecclesiarum Pastorum
The Council of
Trent does not need to tell me that any pastor cannot change the rites.
Pope Innocent
III said that if any future Pope tries to change the sacraments, he must not be
followed.
At Council of
Florence Pope Eugene IV had as his theologian Cardinal Torquemada who wrote a
book titled “Summa Ecclesia”, which says that if a Pope tries to change the
sacraments he puts himself outside the Church. For this work Pope Eugene IV
gave him the title “Defender of the Faith”.
Pope St. Pius
V in response to the Council of Trent’s dogmatic definitions wrote his bull Quo
Primum. This bull clearly states that the Roman rite and those rites greater
than 200 years old, cannot be changed and that any priest cannot be forced to
say any other rite. All Popes after this time up to and including Pope John
XXIII interpreted Quo Primum as binding on them. (See Appendix A).
Now many
Catholics who are “conservative” acknowledge these documents and agree that the
old rites should be preserved but defend Vatican II and say that it never
intended to change the rites and these are just abuses. Fr. Hesse will show
that the second Vatican council did intend to change the rites and do have
heresy in them. Therefore Vatican II must be rejected in total, not in each
line as they do occasionally quote old Councils.
Due to many
misunderstandings Fr. Hesse gives many theological definitions to assist the
average lay person to understand the issues better before beginning a review of
the Vatican II documents.
Definitions –
Objective
vs Subjective:
Objective
means something concerns the thing or object. Subjective means something
concerns the person. When I make an objective judgement I judge facts or things
or actions. When I make a subjective judgement I judge a person (which I do not
want to do). Objective concerns the thing itself. Subjective means what
something means to me. Pope Eugene IV in the Council of Florence (1441)
pronounced that no one who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if he
thinks he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved. The Pope makes an objective
judgement. He does not say that all Protestants are in Hell. Objectively
speaking they have no chance to enter heaven. Subjectively we do not know what
the Lord will do with them. Two rules of the church: The church does not judge
the dead. (De Mortuis
Ecclesia non judica.)
The church does not judge internal things (De internis Ecclesia non judica.).
Material
vs. Formal:
Material means
that something is there i.e. It exists. Formal means it is declared as such.
If I say John Paul II is a material heretic, that means, he has all the matter
of a heretic. It can be proven, that many of his writings, or things that he
said, are heretical. I would not dare to say he is a heretic (formal) for no
one can judge the Pope and no one can judge his intentions or conscience. I see
heresy, it is there (material), but one cannot say it is formal heresy. For
instance, the Pope will say “according to tradition…” and then he proceeds to
say something wrong. An example of formal heresy would be if he should say
something like “Contrary to what the Council of Trent says, I tell you…” some
heresy.
Valid vs.
Licit:
Valid means it
takes place, it happens. Licit means that it is allowed or legal. For instance
the Roman Catholic church has always recognized the fact that the Russian
Orthodox Church has all seven sacraments, valid but not licit since they are
heretics and schismatics. Heretic because they say the Pope is not infallible
and schismatic because they say the Pope does not have the primacy.
Act and
Potency: (entire
philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas is based on this distinction).
Any thing that
is can be in two ways, Actually or Potentially. The new philosophy / theology
does not use these distinctions. When John Paul II says “all people are saved”
is he correct? If he means potentially, then he is correct. If he means
actually then he is in error. Our Lord says many go to the wide and broad way
to hell. The Pope does not distinguish between act and potency.
Heresy,
Schism, Error, Disobedience:
Schism
means I separate myself from the Church, not denying anything of the faith
itself but simply denying church authority. If I tell you not to do something
that the Pope said was wrong then I just tell you what Pope Innocent III and
Pope Pius IX said. If I tell you that you should not regard anything this Pope
says then I would be leading you into schism. Do not deny the power of the
Pope’s authority! Just as President Clinton is president and we cannot deny
this but if he tells me to disregard the 10 commandments I tell him no. This is
not denying his authority, it is simply not obeying an unjust command since I do
not reject his power to give commands, just the command itself. This is our
present relationship to the Pope.
Heresy
means to know but deny or doubt a defined doctrine of the Church.
Error
means you may have a mistaken understanding of what the church teaches. (i.e.
you are erroneous). If there is something the Pope should know then I talk
about heresy. If there is something he clearly misunderstood then I have to
talk about error, always judging objectively and materially.
Disobedience has nothing to do with
Schism, Heresy or Error. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops he at
first glance appeared to be disobedient. (He was not disobedient because it was
an unjust command he did not follow and it was certainly not against the will of
Christ or the Church). In no way can one say he was in schism because he never
denied the Popes right to give a command, he simply said I cannot follow this
one command because it is unjust. This is explained in another lecture given by
Fr. Hesse.
You must
understand these distinctions otherwise you will not understand what I am about
to say. Next we must go over what is know as Theological Positions (Thelochi
Theologica). These are finer distinctions than heresy and error as well
as Catholic truths.
Catholic Truth:
De fide
divina: By divine
faith. That is it must be believed. These are such things as Canons of Council
of Trent, Vatican I, etc. declare a dogma.
De fide
Catolica: The church
has always believed it. It is part of the faith (e.g. the creed).
De fide
de finita:
The church has always believed it but once in history a Pope has made a
definition. (e.g. 1854 – Pope Pius IX proclaimed dogma of Immaculate
Conception-this was always believed but was now defined on exactly what this was
supposed to mean.
Fide
Proxima:
Close to the faith. It is not a dogma but the church has always believed it and
it could be a dogma at any time. (e.g. Mary as Co-Redemptrix: Our Lady had
first role in helping Our Lord in redemption, although only Jesus saves) This
is a Sententia Fide Proxima, that is you may not deny it without
fear of punishment from God.
Sententia Certa:
It is not actually of the faith but we are very sure about it.
Sententia Communis:
We may not be very sure about it but everyone says so, not in sense of democracy
but in sense of historical accordance. Most of saints, theologians, Popes
throughout centuries agreed on it.
Sententia Probabalis:
It is probable. We don’t know exactly. (e.g. if a person in mortal sin dies
and makes a perfect act of contrition the church teaches most probably he will
be saved).
Ecclesiastical
Centures:
Heretical:
directly denies dogma of the faith.
Heresy
Proxima: does not literally deny a dogma but it coming pretty
close to it.
Erroneous:
It is not denying a dogma but just make a mistake about it.
Arrorea
Proxima: It is not
wrong in itself but by circumstances.
Temeraria:
It is daring to say so. How dare you say it. It is Male Sonans
(it does not sound good). It is offensive to pious ears.
(Piario Aurreum Offensiva).
It is scandalous when done
in public.
Before
starting a detailed examination of some of the scandalous documents of Vatican
II, let me quote the Gospel.
“Who so shall
offend one of these little ones that follow me it were better for him if a mill
stone was hanged about his neck and he was drowned in the depths of the sea”.
Some ask why
is Fr. Hesse not nice and kind. “Think not that I have come to send peace on
earth. I have come not to send peace but a sword.”
Some say this
Fr. Hesse is a rigorist. Let me quote another rigorist. “For verily I say unto
you not one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law till all be
fulfilled.” and “I am the way, the truth and the life”.
“But though we
or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed”.
First
Constitution of Vatican II: Sacrosanctuum Concillium 12/4/63
In paragraph 1 it states “It is the
goal of this most sacred Council…to make more responsive the requirements of our
times those Church observances which are open to adaptation; to nurture whatever
can contribute to the unity of all who believe in Christ”. This notion is
erroneous and has been condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (On Ecumenism).
He condemns the false “opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is
a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time
existed, and does not today exist…” “Everyone knows that John himself, the
Apostle of love…altogether forbade any discourse with those who profess a
mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching”; “for the union of
Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one, true Church
of Christ”. When we make a profession of faith we say “una, sancta, Catolica,
Apostolica Ecclesia” (one, holy Catholic & Apostolic Church). The Church is
always in union with itself. Protestants are outside the Church. The Russian
Orthodox Church is heretical and schismatic and are outside the Church, and is
not our sister church as John Paul II says. We must not change liturgy to
achieve union…we have this union!
Paragraph 4
says “Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal
authority and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and foster
them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be
carefully and thoroughly revised in the light of sound tradition, and that they
be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.” This
notion of adapting the liturgy has been condemned by Pius VI in Auctorum Fide as
“scandalous, rash and offensive to pious ears”. Vatican II is contradicting
itself here.
Paragraph 7,
although not heretical is confusing. It talks about Christ being present in the
sacraments but then quotes Mt 18:20 “where two or three are gathered in my name
there I am in the midst of them”. In the old Councils a distinction would be
made that Mt18 is a spiritual presence and at the Mass Christ is really and
truly present on the altar (body, blood, soul and divinity). The 2nd
Vatican Council does not make these distinctions.
Paragraph
14 says “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full
and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before
all else”. This is not heresy but is conducive into the heresy which is
promoted nowadays that a priest cannot celebrate Mass alone. This has been
explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent.
(Session XIII, Canon X).
The most important thing according
to defined dogma is to keep the tradition of Mass.
Paragraph
21 says “restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they
express more clearly the holy things which they signify. Christian people as
far as possible should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in
them fully, actively, and as befits a community.” What does this mean? Did not
the Christians take part in the old mass? The oldest liturgical rule is “lex
orandi, lex credendi” i.e. The law of what has to be prayed constitutes the law
of what has to be believed. The Mass is not supposed to be understood by the
Village idiot or even the people. The Mass is supposed to represent the entire
faith of the Church. As a theologian studying since 1974, I still do not
understand all the Mass liturgy. To make a Mass that is understood by the
Village idiot requires a totally imbecile rite. The liturgy is supposed to
explain the faith to me. Liturgy is a sign of the specific grace received “ex
operae operatio”. In old days, when most were illiterate how come they knew the
faith? Either you give up the highest principle of liturgy or you make an
imbecile rite. Today the Mass is understood less than ever and there is
confusion everywhere.
Paragraph
22:1 “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of
the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and as laws may determine on the
Bishop.
Paragraph
22:2 “In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy
within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishop’s
conferences, legitimately established with competent and given territories.
So far it means nothing else but that
some things will be decided not by the Holy See, but by the Bishop’s
Conferences. But then throughout the rest of the document they only quote number
22:2 (Dispite 22:1). When I’m through with this document you will see what 22:2
really means, you will see the real context of 22:2.
Paragraph 24
wants to dump the beautiful prayers of the Church for sacred scripture…why?
Because for the Protestants there is no tradition, only sola scriptura. Now we
have endless quotes from sacred scripture that no one understands anyway.
Paragraph 25:
“The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; from various parts
of the world, experts are to be employed and bishops are to be consulted.” Do
you ‘conservatives’ still really believe that Vatican II never meant to change
the mass? They got this very quickly…4 years after Council.
When Pius VI
condemned the pseudo Council of Pystoya in Auctorum Fide, he said it was the
usual tactic of the liberal to use ambiguous terminology. When you accuse of
them of there error they say, I did not say that, but they act according to it.
Pius VI goes on to say the purpose of a Council to clarify. Vatican II
certainly did not do that. Fr. Schillebex said that we will use ambiguous terms
and after the council we will know how to interpret them.
Paragraph 30:
“By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to
take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons and songs as
well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes.” This is a Protestant and
Pentecostal request. The priest celebrates Mass. The people assist, they do
not celebrate the liturgy. Now we have hula masses, polka masses, clown masses,
etc.
Paragraph 32:
“no special honors are to be paid by any private person or classes of persons”.
We are now all equal. What about the Count who entirely out of his own pocket
builds the church? Should he not have his proper place up front?
Paragraph 33:
“the prayers addressed to God by the priest, who presides of the assembly in the
person of Christ, are said in the name of the entire holy people as well as that
of all present.” They have changed many of the prayers in the new liturgy from
I to We. This is an error. For instance at the offertory the priest says “I
offer you up this immaculate host”. As he speaks “en persona Christi” he
cannot be speaking in the name of the people. It is Christ who offers not We.
Paragraph
35.1: “In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy
scripture…” Catering to the Protestants again. As if we understood all the
reading in the Roman missal. The old mass produced a lot saints, the new mass
has not produced one yet.
Paragraph
36:1 “use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”
Paragraph
36:2 “but since the use of the vulgar tongue…may be frequently be of great
advantage …regulations on this matter laid down in subsequent chapters.”
Paragraph 36:3
refers to article 22:2
Note how the
modernists speak with forked tongue: they say Latin must be preserved but you
can use the vernacular.
Paragraph 37
promotes the use of inculturation in the liturgy.
Paragraph 40:
“In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of
the liturgy is needed…” 40.1 refers to 22:2. This is why we get all these
crazy liturgies.
Paragraph 43
says the reform is a movement of the Holy Spirit. That is probably why the
whole world is converted and many have decided they don’t need to go to church
anymore. This the liturgy of a new religion, not the Catholic religion.
Paragraph 44:
Article 22:2 referenced. Use of experts. Pius XII condemns changes in Mediator
Dei. “promotes necessary experiments”. When Cardinal Koenig was asked how it
was possible that they were replacing the reading of St. Paul with communist
authors, his only reply was “that’s an interesting liturgical experiment”.
Paragraph 50:
“…rites are to be simplified…elements…duplicated or added with little advantage
are to be discarded” Simplifying rites has been condemned by Pius VI in
Auctorum Fide. Pope binds his successors in matters of faith. Vatican I says
the Pope must guard and explain the faith and may not change them.
Paragraph 54
says that the faithful should be able to use Latin but then refers to Articles
36 and 40 which say to use the vernacular and both of these articles refer to
22:2.
Paragraph 55
references Council of Trent when it says “communion under both kinds may be
granted when bishops think fit” whereas the Council of Trent did not want
distribution under both species because of risk to Eucharist.
Paragraph 57
allows for concelebrations. Canon 902 says no priest may be forced to
concelebrate yet priests are forced to frequently today.
Paragraph 58
new concelebration rite. Do you ‘conservatives’ still say Vatican II did not
want concelebration?
Paragraph 62
asks for simplifying rite.
Paragraph 68
calls for a shorter rite in case of emergency. This is silly…in case of
emergency you always said the old rite “I baptize thee in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”. How much shorter can you get?
Paragraph 71:
“The rite of confirmation is to be revised…”
Paragraph 72:
“rites and formulas of Penance are to be revised…”
Paragraph 76:
“ordination rites are to be revised…”
Paragraph 77:
“marriage rites are to be revised…”
All the
sacraments are new rites and this has been condemned by the Church. Those who
use and approve of the new rites are materially in schism with the Church.
Paragraph 79:
“the sacraments are to be revised…” “the requirements of our times have to be
weighed” This has be condemned by Pius IX, Pius XII, & Pius VI.
Paragraph 91:
“psalms to be distributed over longer than one week”. Oldest rule of the
breviary is to say the 150 Psalms in one week. A priest must give praise to
God seven times a day. The liturgical reformers took out 3 psalms which condemn
the heretics to hell. This is scandalous as it goes against a tradition of
nearly 2000 years.
Paragraph 92:
“lives of saints to be in accord with history” I trust tradition handed down of
martyrologies.
Paragraph 93:
“hymns restored….removed of mythology” Scandalous because it tells us we have
been fed a load of you know what for almost 2000 years.
Paragraph
112: “Church approves of all forms of true art, and admits them into Divine
worship” You can see how this was interpreted by all the ugly new churches”
Paragraph 119:
“adapt liturgy to native genius” inculturation again…
Paragraph 122:
admits different forms of art. See how the bishops have interpreted this.
Paragraph
128: “Along with the revision of the revision of the liturgical books as laid
down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and
ecclesiastical statutes which govern the disposition of material things involved
in sacred worship.” Now it may be very hard to find the tabernacle. The altar
has been replaced by a table.
Appendix:
There are many
spiritual time bombs in Vatican II….here is one:
“The feast of
Easter may be moved to a Sunday” changes a tradition as old as the church
itself.
Who is to
interpret Vatican II? The Pope. We shall see how He interprets Vatican II.
The Council was very ambiguous. This has been condemned by Pope Pius VI in his
encyclical “Auctorum Fide” where he condemns the Council of Pistoya
saying the trick of the Modernists is to write in such a way as something can be
interpreted in two ways. Pius VI says the purpose of a Council is to clarify
doctrine. Pius X similarly condemns this ambiguity in Paschendi Dominici
Gregious saying that one of the Modernist tricks is to give you some
Catholic doctrine on one hand but take away some Catholic doctrine on the
other.
St. Cyprian
says that if one point of Catholic doctrine is denied then all are denied and
they are outside the Church. Therefore Protestants are outside the Church and
cannot really be called Christian. All you can do is pray that they convert and
come into the one true Church. The same can said for those Catholics who accept
Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. which was written up by Annibale
Bugnini
(a known
Freemason) & seven Protestant ministers amongst others. These persons who
accept Vatican II & the new mass are in material schism with the Church.
Extraordinary
Magesterium: (Infallible Pronouncements) When the Pope declares something on
faith &/or morals, he declares that it must be believed, & he speaks with his
full apostolic authority. He does not add anything to Tradition, he simply says
this is part of Tradition and the question is no longer up for discussion.
Divine Revelation (Tradition) ended with the death of the last Apostle. The
Pope is guardian of the deposit of faith. The Pope does not have a guarantee of
impeccability.
Ordinary
Magesterium: When Pope does not declare in solemn manner as above, he does not
speak in an infallible manner but he still binds us to obedience. Pius XII (Humani
Generis) spoke against false opinions of Modernists that said we do not have
to obey the Pope unless he speaks infallibly. Pius XII said in No. 20, “Nor
must it be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not of
itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise
the supreme power of their teaching authority and generally what is expounded
and inculcated in encyclical letters or for other reasons appertains to Catholic
doctrine, but if the Supreme Pontiffs pass judgement on a matter up to that time
in dispute, it is obvious that the matter according to the mind and will of the
same Pontiff cannot be any longer considered a question open for discussion
among theologians“ Therefore when Paul VI, Humanae Vitae that contraception is
a mortal sin, or when Pope Pius IX condemned heresies in his Syllabus of
Errors, or when John Paul II says a woman priest is impossible, no Pope may say
otherwise.
However do we
follow a Pontiff who says heresy? After all he is not guaranteed impeccability:
Pope Innocent
III said “It is quite conceivable that a future Pope may teach heresy and put
himself outside the Church in which case we must not follow him” He did not say
he ceases to be Pope. He reminds his successors that “the less a person is
judged by humans the harder he will be judged by God.” Is it possible that out
of 3000 bishops only 2 remained faithful to tradition? Yes, we have seen this
historically with Pope Liberius & St. Athanasius.
Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World., Lumen Gentium: November
21, 1964.
Paragraph 1
“The Church is in nature of sacrament, a sign...” There are only 7 sacraments,
the Church is not a sacrament. The Church is a perfect society, not a sign. It
is the instrument of salvation for the world. Christ came to unify in the
faith. “I did not come to bring peace but the sword.” The Church may be an
instrument of unity among all men but in actuality is not.
Paragraph 5:
The Church does not “grow to maturity”, it is a perfect society. Pope Pius XII
said it is a daring and wrong concept that the Church grows or matures in
Humanae Generis. The Church is indefectible, not her members. Mt16:18. The
Church is a Monarchy not a democracy.
Paragraph 7:
Use of words “breaking of bread” which stresses meal aspect and not real
presence. This is not heresy but can lead to heresy. (Note: recent poll of
“Catholics” indicates only 30% believe in real presence).
Paragraph 8:
“entrusted the Church to Peters care, commissioning him and the other Apostles
to extend and rule it.” This is the notion of collegiality. Our Lord only gave
Peter the supreme authority. Mt16. Church called “a society” instead of “ a
perfect society”. The Church is said to “subsist” in the Catholic Church. This
is very close to heresy. The Church of Christ does not subsist in the Catholic
Church, it is the Catholic Church. The Pope is the competent authority to
interpret this text. He (John Paul II) has said that the Russian Orthodox
Church is our sister church and that the Ukrainian Church loyal to Rome somehow
separated herself from her Mother Church (Russian Orthodox Church).
“Nevertheless many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its
visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they
are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.” What the text says is that we
want to unite with the heretics and schismatics. As they are alleged to have
“elements of sanctification” they must subsist in the Church of Christ. This is
heresy against the dogma of the Church. The Church is always unified “one,
holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church”. In reality elements of sanctification (e.g.
baptism) is not outside the Catholic Church but is a sacrament illicitly used
outside the Church which is property of the Church.
Paragraph 13:
“These Churches retain their own traditions without in any way lessening the
primacy of the chair of Peter.” Confusing because it does not say the eastern
churches united with Rome. Seems to be interpreted by John Paul II as meaning
those not in union with Rome.
#15 “The
Church recognizes that she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored
with the name Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety
(i.e. the heretics) or do not preserve unity in communion with the successor of
Peter (i.e. the schismatics)” I would like to know how we are linked with the
heretics and schismatics when the Church has dogmatically defined they are
outside the Church. This is heresy proxima.
“Likewise we
can say that they are joined to us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also He gives
His gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with His sanctifying
power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their
blood.” This is direct heresy and blasphemy against the Council of Florence and
Pope Eugene IV who said that “heretics even if they think they are shedding
their blood for Christ cannot be saved.” (Remember this is an objective
statement).
#16 “Finally,
those who have not yet received the gospel are related in various ways to the
People of God” Potentially this is true, actually it is not! Are the Jews
related to the Catholics? No. St. Paul tells us that the Jews who reject Christ
don’t even see the God the old testament clearly except through a veil. Do the
Jews worship the God of the New Testament (the Blessed Trinity)? No. Is the God
of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New? Yes Therefore, the Jews
have rejected the God of the Old Testament and we don’t worship the same God.
“the Moslems…together with us adore one merciful God” This is blasphemy. The
Koran says the notion of God being a Trinity is excrement. They are Pagans.
The Koran says to kill the infidels (that means us), therefore they adore one,
merciful God (Allah) against us. St. Paul says the gods of the pagans are
demons.
#18 “those
ministers who are endowed with sacred power are dedicated to the interests there
brethren” They are not! They are to promote the interests of God, and our
following God’s commands.
#22 “The
supreme authority with which this college of bishops is empowered over the whole
Church is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council” The council of
bishop does not have any supreme authority. There are statements which
contradict this statement before and after so why did they put it in there? It
can be interpreted incorrectly.
#25 “The
infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of bishops”
Heresy. This is interpreted by John Paul II in Redemptor Hominus as
unity consisting in the bishops conferences, parish councils, etc., not what it
really is: unity under Peter’s successor, the unity of the liturgy, and the
unity of faith. We have the Soviet (council) Union in the Church. This was
done to weaken the power of the Papacy.
#29 “the
diaconate can be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy”.
Council of Trent did not want anyone who was not striving for priesthood to
receive minor orders. “the diaconate will be able to be conferred upon those
men…even in married state”. Goes against teaching of St. Jerome that “only a
celibate clergy may touch the sacred species and this comes from the mouth of
Our Lord himself.” St. Thomas Aquinas likewise teaches only consecrated hands
can touch Holy Eucharist. This allows for sacrileges.
#30
“everything said so far ..applies equally to laity, religious and clergy”
Clergy will be judged more harshly because of their position.
Addenda: “The
question has been raised what ought to be theological qualifications in this
document…In view of the conciliar practice and pastoral purpose of the present
Council, this sacred synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the
Church only when the Synod itself openly says so.”
Unitatis
Redintegratio (Decree on
Ecumenism) November 21, 1964.
I detest the
term pilgrim church because of the way Vatican II uses it. In Unitatis
Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)
#6 we read
“Christ summons the Church as she goes on her pilgrim way, to that continual
reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of
men here on earth. Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has
lead to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the
formulation of doctrine (which must be distinguished from the deposit of faith
itself), these should be properly rectified at the proper moment.” Gregory XVI
in Mirari Vos condemns the notion of necessary reformation. The very
concept of reformulation of doctrine is heresy and has been explicitly condemned
by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (On Ecumenism). Pius XI says in
#12 “How so
great a variety of opinions can clear the way for the unity of the Church we
know not. That unity can arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief,
& one faith of Christians, but do we not know that from such a state of affairs
(here Pius XI is referring to Protestant dialogue) that it is but an easy step
to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to the error of the modernists
who hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is changes
according to the varying necessities of time and place and to the varying
tendencies of the mind and it is not contained in an immutable tradition but can
be altered to suit the needs of human life.”
#13
“Furthermore, it is never lawful to employ in connection with articles of faith,
the distinction invented by some between fundamental and non-fundamental
articles, the former to be accepted by all and the later to be up to the free
acceptance of the faithful.” This is exactly what Unitatis Redintegratio
does.
In Unitatis
Redintegaratio #8 it says “As for common worship…the practical course to be
adopted, after due regard has been given to all the circumstances of time,
place, and personage, is left to prudent decision of the local episcopal
authority, unless the local Bishops’ conference according to its own statutes or
the Holy See, has determined otherwise.” The notion of common worship (communicatio
insacris) with false religions has been condemned and been under the pain of
excommunication for more than 1500 years.
And in #17
“…sometimes one tradition has come nearer than the other to an apt appreciation
of certain aspects of a revealed mystery, or has expressed them in a clearer
manner.” This document dares to say that the eastern “orthodox” religions
outside the Church understand doctrine better than Christ’s Church. In Quo
Primum, Pius V says that the Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all
the Churches. There is no such thing as a truth expressed better in another
Church, even those united to Rome. The Church Fathers and Popes have rejected
such a notion up to Pius XII.
#22 “The
ecclesial communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us
which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the
lack of the sacrament of orders they have not preserved the genuine and total
reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the
Lords death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies
life in communion with Christ and they await His coming in glory. For these
reasons dialogue should be undertaken concerning the true meaning of the Lords
Supper, other sacraments, and Churches worship and ministry.” This line is
interpreted in the new liturgy. It gives up the doctrine of the sacramental
priesthood and the real presence on the altar when it demands dialogue with
those who reject the teaching of the Church. I explain the faith to the
Protestants and then I tell them take it or leave it.
I don’t dialog.
This document lead to the meeting
in 1965 between Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. The joint declaration called
the excommunication in 1054 of Patriarch Michael who separated himself from Rome
by St. Leo IX a “painful decision”. John Paul II goes out of his way to
apologize for St. Leo, St. Gregory VII excommunication of the emperor, St. Pius
V war with the Turks, & in the Ballamand Agreement mocks the martyr St. Joseph
for keeping the unity of the Ukrainian Church and Rome when the agreement asks
the Ukrainian priests to submit to the authority of the local schismatic &
heretical “Orthodox” bishop. This is high treason and if it were not the Pope
would require capital punishment. However no earthly authority may judge the
Pope on these things. He is warned however by Innocent III, “the less a man is
judged by men the more he will be judged by God.” The duty of the Ukrainian
priest is to resist this command against faith and morals. (See Mortalium
Animos).
Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation).
#8: “This
tradition of the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy
Spirit. For there is a growth in understanding the realities and the words
which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study
made by believers who treasure these things in their hearts, through the
intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the
preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift
of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves
toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach there complete
fulfilment in her.” No. The Church is in possession of the full truth. The
Church cannot approach truth. Tradition does not change due to the pondering of
believers and the experiences make no difference to truth. Only growth is in
the deepening of the understanding. St. Vincent of Lerins: “There is a
deepening of the understanding of the truth but in the same sense and in the
same judgement”. You cannot change doctrine because of some “better
understanding”. The most fraudulent document signed by John Paul II Ecclesia
Dei: #3 “…such disobedience constitutes a rejection of the Roman Primacy”
referring to Archbishop Lefebvre consecration of bishops. In the tradition of
moral theology handed down to us consecrations against the will of the Pope were
considered disobedience only and never a schismatic act.
#4 of Ecclesia
Dei: “the root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and
contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete in that it does not take into
account the living character of tradition which as the Second Vatican Council
teaches…” here John Paul II quotes Dei Verbum #8. John Paul II then talks about
rejection of new doctrines. There cannot be new doctrines! Archbishop
Lefebvre’s notion of tradition is exactly in accordance with Vatican I and
Trent.
Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious
Liberty):12/7/65
#1 “A sense of
dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on
the consciousness of contemporary man” Pius X says man has no dignity outside
of bring a Christian.
#2 “The
Vatican Synod declares the human person has the right to religious freedom.”
“the right to religious freedom has as its foundation the very dignity of the
human person…” “Thus it is to become a civil right”. What do Catholics say
about this? Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos condemns this idea: #15 “From this
poison source of indifferentism flows that false and absurd or rather
extravagant maxim that liberty of conscience should be established and
guaranteed to each man. A most contagious error to which leads the absolute and
unbridled liberty of opinion which for the ruin of Church and State spreads over
the whole world and which some men by unbridled imprudence fear not to represent
as advantages to the Church. And what more certain death for souls says St.
Augustine than liberty of error.” In Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors he condemns
the following statements: Anyone who agrees with anyone of these statements is
not a Catholic.
#15 of
Syllabus: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which guided
by the light of reason he shall consider true.”
#16 of
Syllabus: “Man may in the observance of any religion whatever find the way of
eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation”
#17 of
Syllabus: “Good hope at least, is to be entertained in the eternal salvation of
all those who are not in the true Church of Christ.”
#18 of
Syllabus: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true
Christian religion in which form it is given to please God equally as in the
Catholic Church.”
#20 of
Syllabus: “The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without
permission and assent of the civil government.”
#21 of
Syllabus: “The Church has not the power to dogmatically define that Catholic
religion the only true religion.”
#22 of
Syllabus: The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly
bound is confined to those things which are to universal belief as dogmas of
faith by the infallible judgement of the Church.
#77 of
Syllabus: “The present day it is no longer expedient for the Catholic religion
be the only religion of state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”
#78 of
Syllabus: “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries,
that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy public exercise of their own
peculiar worship.”
#79 of
Syllabus: Moreover it is false that the liberty of every form of worship, and
the full power, given to all of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions
whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of
the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.”
#80 of
Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself, and come to
terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
Cardinal
Ratzinger has admitted that Vatican II is an anti-Syllabus.
#2 of
Dignitatis Humanae cont’d: “…he cannot be forced to act in a manner contrary to
his conscience.” The Church has never contradicted this statement. The Church
simply says if do not correspond with the teaching of the Church you will go to
hell.
#4 Requests
civil authorities to give complete freedom for all schismatic, heretical, and
pagan sects to spread there error. Condemned by Pius IX in #20-22,77-80 of
Syllabus. Traditionally government would have to submit to the Papal authority.
Christ the
King: Pius XI Quas Primas. Christ is King over all nations. This document
never mentions Christ the King or his rights over all men.
The
Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes)
12/7/65:
Discusses the
relation of the Church and the world today. The Church wants to cooperate
unreservedly with the world. They toss out Christ the King.
#12 “According
to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and non-believers alike, all things
on earth should be related to man as their center and summit.” This is Satanism
because it puts man in the position of God.
#22 says that
Christ reveals man to himself. Catholics always were taught Christ reveals the
Blessed Trinity. “For by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in
some fashion with every man.” This is true potentially not actually. The
footnotes do not correspond with this statement. “All this holds true not only
for Christians but for all men of good will….” Not true. Our Lord says that
unless your baptized in water and the Holy Spirit you cannot be saved. Further
more the Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire refers to a promise to
get baptized at the first possible moment.
Pope Eugene IV
(Council of Florence-1441AD): “The Church firmly believes, professes and
preaches that nobody who exists outside the Catholic Church, not only the
pagans, but also not the Jews, also not the heretics, also not the schismatics,
can be participants in eternal life, but they will go to the eternal fire
prepared the devil and his angels unless they be joined with the Church before
the end of their life. And the Council, professes, believes and preaches the
unity of this ecclesiastical body is worth so much that only those who remain
with in her, and receive the salvation of the ecclesiastical sacraments, and
profess them, and do their fastings and works and all the other offices of piety
and all the other exercises of Christian virtues will have the eternal Christ.
Nobody how ever many works he has done, even if he thinks he sheds his blood for
Christ can be saved if he is not within the Catholic Church and its union.” –
objective judgement. Objectively when John Paul II says in Ut Unun Sint
that “saints come from all religions” he pronounces heresy and blasphemy.
#88
“Christians should collaborate willingly and wholeheartedly in the establishment
of an international order…” This was written by Jose Maria Escriba de Balegair
of the Opus Dei.
#27 Paschendi
Domenichi Gregious of St. Pius X condemns the above statement.
Related:
TradCatKnight Radio (MP3) orderoftheeagle.wordpress.com/mp3/
Please share blogs and help spread information Crusaders!
TradCatKnight is the most viewed
& followed traditional catholic page worldwide.
This is the HOME of the New Crusade
keeping you up to date on the latest Endtime
News stories worldwide as we head closer to the GREAT CHASTISEMENTS foretold by the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima.
TradCatKnight Mobile Apps For
Download:
OR Search TradCatKnight
on App sites on your phone!
Please Help Keep TradCatKnight Alive
& Growing:
Donate below for a chance to win a
gift via TradCatKnight’s
Monthly raffle. Minimum contribution
is 20$ for the raffle.
Winner announced on every last radio
show of the month!
No comments:
Post a Comment