It is currently Tue May 26, 2020 11:03 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 
 Is the Church still intact? 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Is the Church still intact?
Since the council was a “pastoral” and not dogmatic, and none of the heresies were declared ex Cathedra, is the Church still intact?

I’m not sure if the usurpers were/are exceptionally crafty or the Holy Ghost is limiting the damage they can do.

I'd like to think it's the latter.

At first when I read about the Council being “pastoral” I thought they made it pastoral because it would be much more difficult to prove that they were anti-popes if they remained in the realm of papal fallibility. However, it has crossed my mind that they (the last 5 popes) are in fact limited in what they can do to destroy the Church.

If I could draw a crude analogy it seems as if they have created a fake Church and put it in front of the real Church. They got control of the real Church and knowing they couldn’t destroy it created a fake which resembled the real Church to a degree that the large majority of Catholics would not be able to distinguish the two, well at least in the beginning.

Or did they succeed in reducing the number of Catholics in the world from 500,000,000 million to a few hundred thousand?

"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

To me I think when the Pope Leo says “individual segments” of the Church I don’t think he is referring to the papacy, at least not to be permanently taken over.

The mass is another area where I am not 100% sure the new mass is invalid. I certainly would not attend the new mass but it seems there is a possibility that it may be valid, in fact I hope, for the sake of millions of Catholics, (my grandmother who is 95 and had 12 children for example) that it is valid.

Although what has been done in the last 50 years is abhorable, have they in fact destroyed the Church? I’m talking about the main stream (NO) Church, or is it possible that through pressure from traditional Catholics and hopefully some good men on the inside that we will get the Church back again?


Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:20 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
Since the council was a “pastoral” and not dogmatic, and none of the heresies were declared ex Cathedra, is the Church still intact?


I've read this often, but how can a council that is purely "pastoral" (a term that has no real definition in this context) produce "Dogmatic Constitutions" as Vatican II did? What is the actual evidence that Paul VI did not intend that any of the documents of Vatican II to teach anything? I haven't seen it, though I keep reading that the council was purely "pastoral" and didn't declare any teaching.


Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
I was reading an Italian author's book from 1976 which he states "The Italian Bishops are puralists in that they are seperated more dogmatically and pastorally (as opposed to the French Bishops)...The council is in fact "pastoral" and the heresies that stem from the council are disciplinarian and theological rather than dogmatic."

Don't get me wrong I see the whole council as a fraud whose aim was the destruction of the Church, but are the decrees of V2 just a bunch of mumbo jumbo that should have been ignored by the bishops?

Does that make any sense?


Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
Since the council was a “pastoral” and not dogmatic, and none of the heresies were declared ex Cathedra, is the Church still intact?


From this question, I would say that the first thing you may wish to look into is the actual definition of "The Catholic Church" itself. The Catholic Church will ALWAYS be "intact" until the end of the world. It may be reduced to a very small number of true Catholic members, but it will always exist until it is no longer needed, by which time all human-beings will be in either Heaven or Hell, and the universe will have been "...rolled up like a scroll... (St. John's Apocalypse). Some of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church have thought that a possible interpretation of Our Lord's words, "...and there will be one fold and one shepherd..." means that at the end of the world there will be one very tiny congregation of real Catholics left with one bishop or priest left in the entire world when He comes again. His rhetorical question to His disciples, "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?" is, to me, possibly the scariest thing He ever said to us!

Bernard wrote:
If I could draw a crude analogy it seems as if they have created a fake Church and put it in front of the real Church. They got control of the real Church and knowing they couldn’t destroy it created a fake which resembled the real Church to a degree that the large majority of Catholics would not be able to distinguish the two, well at least in the beginning.


That analogy is not so crude: Anna Katherine Emmerick used it.

Bernard wrote:
Or did they succeed in reducing the number of Catholics in the world from 500,000,000 million to a few hundred thousand?


Very possibly, yes.

Bernard wrote:
To me I think when the Pope Leo says “individual segments” of the Church I don’t think he is referring to the papacy, at least not to be permanently taken over.


I agree. What he was taking about, in my opinion, was local Churches that were, essentially, wiped out of existence, or were forced to go very deeply "underground"...like the Catholic Church in China, for instance.

Bernard wrote:
The mass is another area where I am not 100% sure the new mass is invalid. I certainly would not attend the new mass but it seems there is a possibility that it may be valid, in fact I hope, for the sake of millions of Catholics, (my grandmother who is 95 and had 12 children for example) that it is valid.


What, exactly, do you mean by "valid" or "invalid" as applied to the Novus Ordo so-called "mass"? It is completely plain and clear that the consecrations of the Eucharist used in the NO are completely and absolutely invalid, even if performed by a valid priest. And I firmly believe that the Novus Ordo is a blasphemous service, most displeasing to God, and not one bit capable of providing God's Graces to anyone participating in it. It is nothing but another protestant service, man-made, and abominable.

Furthermore, and again in my opinion, you are leaving out one very critical aspect of this issue: and that is that the "ordinations" of the so-called "bishops" in the Novus Ordo have been completely and absolutely invalid since at least 1969.

This, of course, means that every single man that any of those pseudo-bishops attempted to "ordain" is no priest, but simply a layman, and has not one single one of the powers of the real Catholic priesthood, among which are "...to forgive sins and to offer sacrifice for the living and the dead...".

Which then means that no "mass" (lower-case 'm') they have ever "offered" can possibly have ever been "valid", no matter how you define the term.

Bernard wrote:
Although what has been done in the last 50 years is abhorable, have they in fact destroyed the Church?


I repeat: "they" cannot destroy the Church. No one can.

Bernard wrote:
I’m talking about the main stream (NO) Church, or is it possible that through pressure from traditional Catholics and hopefully some good men on the inside that we will get the Church back again?


No. In my opinion that is impossible. What is going to have to occur is the conversion of every thinking member (if there are such) of that cursed protestant sect to true Catholicism. I firmly believe that it will take a direct intervention by God to even wake most of the good ones up enough to see any problem...a direct intervention like the Flood or the Crucifixion.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
I was reading an Italian author's book from 1976 which he states "The Italian Bishops are puralists in that they are seperated more dogmatically and pastorally (as opposed to the French Bishops)...The council is in fact "pastoral" and the heresies that stem from the council are disciplinarian and theological rather than dogmatic."


Not true. Those heresies are all of the above: disciplinarian, theological, and dogmatic....whatever that means.

The True Church CANNOT teach evil...in any form.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Ken Gordon wrote:

Bernard wrote:
The mass is another area where I am not 100% sure the new mass is invalid. I certainly would not attend the new mass but it seems there is a possibility that it may be valid, in fact I hope, for the sake of millions of Catholics, (my grandmother who is 95 and had 12 children for example) that it is valid.


What, exactly, do you mean by "valid" or "invalid" as applied to the Novus Ordo so-called "mass"? It is completely plain and clear that the consecrations of the Eucharist used in the NO are completely and absolutely invalid, even if performed by a valid priest. And I firmly believe that the Novus Ordo is a blasphemous service, most displeasing to God, and not one bit capable of providing God's Graces to anyone participating in it. It is nothing but another protestant service, man-made, and abominable.

Furthermore, and again in my opinion, you are leaving out one very critical aspect of this issue: and that is that the "ordinations" of the so-called "bishops" in the Novus Ordo have been completely and absolutely invalid since at least 1969.

This, of course, means that every single man that any of those pseudo-bishops attempted to "ordain" is no priest, but simply a layman, and has not one single one of the powers of the real Catholic priesthood, among which are "...to forgive sins and to offer sacrifice for the living and the dead...".

Which then means that no "mass" (lower-case 'm') they have ever "offered" can possibly have ever been "valid", no matter how you define the term.



It seems in the English translation for many years the "for you and for all" would have invalidated the mass however the argument is that the preface to the NO translation says that whatever the translation says the words should be taken to mean what it says in the Latin rite.

And no I do not find this argument very convincing, and then with the whole ordination/consecration of bishops problem and the removal of any sacrificial references it seems very unlikely that the mass could be valid.

Performed in Latin by a valid priest? I don't know.

As to my initial question I think I'll have to study more and try to refine my question a bit.


Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:00 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Hi, Bernard!

The heresies of the "Second Vatican Council" were declared ex cathedra. And the "autorities" of this "council" regard the doctrines of the "council" as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. This is what John Paul II says on the obedience due to the "council": "L’obbedienza all’insegnamento del Concilio Vaticano II è obbedienza allo Spirito Santo" (The obedience to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council is obedience to the Holy Spirit) (Speech to the Sacred College of Cardinals, 6.11.1979).
Paul VI too, that knew the instances of Bp. Lefebvre and his problem to recognize the infallible value of certain doctrines of the "council" (as the doctrine on religious freedom), he said to Bp. Lefebvre: « Comment aujourd’hui quelqu’un pourrait-il se comparer à saint Athanase [allusion à Mgr Lefebvre] tout en osant combattre un concile comme le deuxième concile du Vatican, qui ne fait pas moins autorité, qui est même sous certains aspects plus important encore que celui de Nicée? » (Montini: Lettre à Mgr Lefebvre, 29 juin 1975).
So if we hold the "Second Vatican Council" as a Council of the Catholique Church, we must to conclude that the Church is "not intact"; more, she has ceased to exist (because she would teach errors or heresies). On the contrary if we hold that the "Second Vatican Council" is not a Council of the Catholic Church and that Paul VI (and his successors) was not a real Pope, we can conclude that the Church is still intact and alive.


Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:40 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Hi Gabriele,

Let me repeat that I do not believe the last five popes were real popes just so we don't get side tracked.

Have a look at this excerpt from an interview with Archbishop Lefebvre.

What would happen if the pope suddenly utilized his infallibility to order you to obey him? What would you do?

In the measure where the pope would employ his infallibility as the successor of St. Peter in a solemn manner, I believe that the Holy Ghost would not allow the pope to be in error at this very moment. Of course, I would heed the pope then.

But if the pope invoked his infallibility to back the changes you so strongly object to now, what would your attitude be then?

The question does not even arise, because, fortunately, the Holy Ghost is always there and the Holy Ghost would make sure that the pope would not use his infallibility for something that would be contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is for this very reason that the pope does not employ his infallibility because the Holy Ghost would not allow such changes to take place under the imprimatur of infallibility.

But if this should come to pass?

It is inconceivable, but if it did, the church would cease to exist. That would mean there would be no God, because God would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible.

The whole interview is here and is from 1978
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apo ... inview.htm

It appears that in 1978 anyway Archbishop Lefebvre believed that the Pope had not invoked his infallibility (not that he had any anyway).

Is this disputed? Do some maintain that he or his successors invoked their infallibility, in the way it was prescribed in 1870, to promote error.

If they didn't they didn't invoke their infallibility (or pretend to), why not?


Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
I was reading an Italian author's book from 1976 which he states "The Italian Bishops are puralists in that they are seperated more dogmatically and pastorally (as opposed to the French Bishops)...The council is in fact "pastoral" and the heresies that stem from the council are disciplinarian and theological rather than dogmatic."

Don't get me wrong I see the whole council as a fraud whose aim was the destruction of the Church, but are the decrees of V2 just a bunch of mumbo jumbo that should have been ignored by the bishops?

Does that make any sense?


No. This doesn't make any sense. I believe every Catholic bishop had a duty to ignore the decrees of Vatican II, not because they were simply misguided pastoral suggestions, but because the were rooted in an heretical doctrine. The fact of history, however, is that those who rejected the decrees were punished in temporal ways by those who had wrested control over the temporal organization of the Catholic Church. Those who embraced the "changes" and the new doctrines were rewarded. Thus, over time, more and more of the Church fell into heresy and, by the very definition of the word, ceased to be Catholic when they knew that this new teaching was contrary to the doctrine of their youth.

The Modernists who had completed their takeover of the Vatican and the Modernists who now control virtually every diocese (i.e., the buildings, not the Church) certainly do not consider Vatican II to be an optional or even misguided idea. They consider Vatican II and all the has flowed from its "spirit" to be an irreformable super-dogma that no one has a right to question.

Bernard wrote:
It seems in the English translation for many years the "for you and for all" would have invalidated the mass however the argument is that the preface to the NO translation says that whatever the translation says the words should be taken to mean what it says in the Latin rite.


I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. I have read that Cardinal Ratzinger said this in an interview or, perhaps, in one of his books. The General Instructions of the Roman Missal, however, says no such thing. The idea that the official Missal of the Conciliar church makes this claim is just another urban legend that has sprung up in order to justify this most glaring problem with the Novus Ordo. It satisfies to consciences of people who should know better.

I have never been able to find any official Conciliar document that makes the claim. If you can find it, please post it. It would be interesting to behold an official document declaring that if an approved translation contains heresy the faithful are supposed to somehow know that they should ignore the heresy because it really means whatever was said in the approved Latin text which they are unable to read and thus not be able to know that the translation is heretical. Honestly, does that make sense to any sentient being, other than Lucifer, of course?


Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:08 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
It appears that in 1978 anyway Archbishop Lefebvre believed that the Pope had not invoked his infallibility (not that he had any anyway).


Yes, of course. Lefebvre chose to continue to think that the new doctrines of the Second Vatican Council were not infallibles. And he was wrong, obviously. He continued to disobey what he believed to be the Authorities of the Church (Paul VI, John Paul II).

Bernard wrote:
Is this disputed? Do some maintain that he or his successors invoked their infallibility, in the way it was prescribed in 1870, to promote error.


As I have show upside, Paul VI and John Paul II said that the council was the fruit of the Holy Ghost, even in those doctrines that Lefebvre refused.


Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
TKGS wrote:
If you can find it, please post it. It would be interesting to behold an official document declaring that if an approved translation contains heresy the faithful are supposed to somehow know that they should ignore the heresy because it really means whatever was said in the approved Latin text which they are unable to read and thus not be able to know that the translation is heretical.


I ran into this a few months back, I think it comes from Adam Miller's work.

"There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to 'for all,' as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula 'for all' would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. (Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university) "

in 1974 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued it’s “Declaration on the Meaning of Translations of Sacremantal Formulae”

"When a vernacular translation of a sacramental formula is submitted to the Holy See for approval, it examines it carefully. When it is satisfied that it expresses the meaning intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text."


Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Gabriele wrote:
Bernard wrote:
It appears that in 1978 anyway Archbishop Lefebvre believed that the Pope had not invoked his infallibility (not that he had any anyway).


Yes, of course. Lefebvre chose to continue to think that the new doctrines of the Second Vatican Council were not infallibles. And he was wrong, obviously. He continued to disobey what he believed to be the Authorities of the Church (Paul VI, John Paul II).


This speech from Lefebvre in 1976 shows that Lefebvre new the Paul VI was not the pope. translation on the screen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzvNrX-FTyk

Gabriele wrote:
Bernard wrote:
Is this disputed? Do some maintain that he or his successors invoked their infallibility, in the way it was prescribed in 1870, to promote error.


As I have show upside, Paul VI and John Paul II said that the council was the fruit of the Holy Ghost, even in those doctrines that Lefebvre refused.


Yes they said that but they may not have been speaking infallibly when they said it. I'm not an expert on it but there are some pretty specific requirements for a pope to speak ex cathedra.

Again, I know the whole thing was a fraud, they forced people to obey the council under penalty of excommunication (Fr. Normandine in Canada for one) and of course only anti-popes could do that but is there a clear case where they spoke ex cathedra in error.


Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:57 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
And another thing that's significant is that they never got their collegiality (where the Pope is not the supreme leader and decisions are made collectively) through Vatican II and they pushed really hard for that.

That makes my question a bit clearer, when I ask is the Church intact? I'm asking if suppose a true pope came out of the next conclave, or suppose the current man said well I'm going to abdicate and so and so traditional Bishop assume the chair of Peter. Would he be able to nullify the decrees of Vatican II and see the Church continue in some degree as before? Or is the Church as ruled from Rome now beyond all recognition.

If God is cleaning out his Church one would hope that when the cleaning is over there would be a Church left to come back to.


Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:38 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
TKGS wrote:
If you can find it, please post it. It would be interesting to behold an official document declaring that if an approved translation contains heresy the faithful are supposed to somehow know that they should ignore the heresy because it really means whatever was said in the approved Latin text which they are unable to read and thus not be able to know that the translation is heretical.


I ran into this a few months back, I think it comes from Adam Miller's work.

"There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to 'for all,' as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula 'for all' would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. (Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university) "

in 1974 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued it’s “Declaration on the Meaning of Translations of Sacremantal Formulae”

"When a vernacular translation of a sacramental formula is submitted to the Holy See for approval, it examines it carefully. When it is satisfied that it expresses the meaning intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text."


Thank you. I've not ever seen these quotes. The only time I ever actually heard these statements in print. So... What is your question?

You've just demonstrated that the Conciliar church cannot be the Catholic Church since it has declared that what is not is. The Catholic Church cannot "examine [the sacramental form] carefully" and discover that words mean whatever they want them to mean instead of what they actually do mean. By the reasoning given by the Vatican, the English sacramental form could just as well be, "This is just an ordinary piece of bread," and be just as valid as the actually approved all-English Canon (in both the traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo) has ever been.

The title of this topic is, "Is the Church still intact?" You seem to be thinking that it might be still in tact in the Vatican, but you have adequately demonstrated that this cannot be. Of course the Church is intact. It is intact in the traditional enclaves throughout the world. How it will return to the Vatican is, at this time, unknown.

Quote:
That makes my question a bit clearer, when I ask is the Church intact? I'm asking if suppose a true pope came out of the next conclave, or suppose the current man said well I'm going to abdicate and so and so traditional Bishop assume the chair of Peter. Would he be able to nullify the decrees of Vatican II and see the Church continue in some degree as before? Or is the Church as ruled from Rome now beyond all recognition.


As far as I can see, what has to happen is that the person elected to the papacy would first have to be a Catholic. Then he would need to be ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop according to valid rites. Then he would be pope.

I have believed for some time now that this will happen at some time. A man will be elected and will either already be a secret Catholic (otherwise he would have been put away prior to the conclave) or he will be converted. He will then commission an investigation in the new rites of orders. The commission will either present an argument no one has considered before and virtually all will say, "Of course. Why did we think of that? The new rites are valid!" Or, more likely, he will order all priests and bishops to be re-ordained.

But he would clearly have to suppress Vatican II and declare, ex cathedra, that Vatican II was a robber-Council and the popes of that Council were anti-popes.

Of course, all of this is my personal opinion and carries absolutely no weight of authority.


Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:58 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
TKGS wrote:

Thank you. I've not ever seen these quotes. The only time I ever actually heard these statements in print. So... What is your question?

You've just demonstrated that the Conciliar church cannot be the Catholic Church since it has declared that what is not is. The Catholic Church cannot "examine [the sacramental form] carefully" and discover that words mean whatever they want them to mean instead of what they actually do mean. By the reasoning given by the Vatican, the English sacramental form could just as well be, "This is just an ordinary piece of bread," and be just as valid as the actually approved all-English Canon (in both the traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo) has ever been.


Thanks for your replies.

Yes, I agree that to say that whatever the priest is saying in another language means what it says in the Latin rite is ridiculous. In fact, to say the Latin rite in English would make it a different rite in my opinion. If the celebrant is speaking in English it's not a translation, an English translation would be if the priest was speaking in Latin and there was someone else next to him translating what he said into English for the people to hear. That is a side issue though.

I think we are a bit confused about what I mean by "Church", probably because I'm not using the right terms.

In 1958 there was a pope who occupied the papal office, he died, the papal office was vacant for 3 weeks and then John XXIII got control of that office and became the supreme commander of the Church. Now let's suppose he usurped the thrown via a masonic plot. Does that mean that papal office does no longer exist? Does that mean the Church that he is now in control of does not exist?

I would answer no. Now, the real papal office is now occupied by a usurper who will try to destroy the Church. Would this man be able to teach heresy ex-Cathedra? I'm not so sure he would be. He could convene a council and promulgate a bunch of decrees that appeared to be binding but really weren't. And of course since he was in charge he could discipline those who didn't follow and therefore wreak enormous damage.
However if a fake pope gets in control of the real Church can he destroy it?


Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
However if a fake pope gets in control of the real Church can he destroy it?


No. That is dogma. The Church cannot be destroyed. The Church can, however, be greatly reduced in number even to, say, a handful of living people. But owning and controlling church buildings, territory, internet websites, etc., does not make one the Church.

The papacy is perpetual. The Church, however, continues through the period between popes whether that period is 40 days, 40 months, 40 years, or even 400 years. Though the office will continue even when there is no current occupant, it does not necessarily follow that there ever be a successor on this world as it could be close to the endtimes.


Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:57 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
Again, I know the whole thing was a fraud, they forced people to obey the council under penalty of excommunication (Fr. Normandine in Canada for one)


I met and spoke at some length with Fr. Normandine in around 1978. He showed me his Mass schedule: it would literally kill any less healthy man. No wonder he eventually could no longer carry it on. He was simply worn out.

Bernard wrote:
and of course only anti-popes could do that


What, exactly, do you mean by this statement? I am confused. I will say that Hutton Gibson, in a documentary we have here, states, very wisely, "The devil used our virtue of obedience against us."

Bernard wrote:
but is there a clear case where they spoke ex cathedra in error?


First of all, no anti-pope can speak "ex cathedra". Only a True Pope can do so. In any case, I have seen more than one discussion of whether or not any of the present crop of anti-popes has spoken "ex cathedra", and none of them ever have.

Not only do they not fulfill one of the primary requirements (the person must be the True Pope), but they have not fulfilled some of the other requirements either. I do not remember the specific details, but I do remember the conclusion.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:52 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Ken Gordon wrote:
Bernard wrote:
Again, I know the whole thing was a fraud, they forced people to obey the council under penalty of excommunication (Fr. Normandine in Canada for one)


I met and spoke at some length with Fr. Normandine in around 1978. He showed me his Mass schedule: it would literally kill any less healthy man. No wonder he eventually could no longer carry it on. He was simply worn out.

Bernard wrote:
and of course only anti-popes could do that


What, exactly, do you mean by this statement? I am confused. I will say that Hutton Gibson, in a documentary we have here, states, very wisely, "The devil used our virtue of obedience against us."


Well as the SSPX will tell you the pope can err and that he is only infallible under very specific criteria which leaves one with the impression that the last 5 popes may just be mistaken, however no true Pope could have done what they did regardless. And yes I mean to use our virtue of obedience against us, as well as many other things.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Bernard wrote:
but is there a clear case where they spoke ex cathedra in error?


First of all, no anti-pope can speak "ex cathedra". Only a True Pope can do so. In any case, I have seen more than one discussion of whether or not any of the present crop of anti-popes has spoken "ex cathedra", and none of them ever have.

Not only do they not fulfill one of the primary requirements (the person must be the True Pope), but they have not fulfilled some of the other requirements either. I do not remember the specific details, but I do remember the conclusion.


Thank you, so technically, even if they were true popes we could reject everything they have decreed and remain Catholic. Which is probably what should have happened, unfortunately it seems a large majority of bishops and clergy had no problem with it (the changes).


Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
TKGS wrote:
The papacy is perpetual. The Church, however, continues through the period between popes whether that period is 40 days, 40 months, 40 years, or even 400 years.


Although this last statement may be true, it is historically true that the longest interregnum that has ever occurred in the Church prior to this time was a little over 3 years, during which time the Church descended into utter chaos. I have very strong doubts that a real interregnum could last much longer than about 3 years. 40 years has never even been contemplated before now, and, in my opinion, 400 years would be impossible.

TKGS wrote:
Though the office will continue even when there is no current occupant,


...for a relatively short time...

TKGS wrote:
it does not necessarily follow that there ever be a successor in this world as it could be close to the endtimes.


I think that this last statement is incorrect: Vatican Council I: Dogmatic Constitutions: "If anyone says that Blessed Peter will not have perpetual successors until the end of time (!), let him be anathema."

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:37 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
Thank you, so technically, even if they were true popes we could reject everything they have decreed and remain Catholic.


Of course...

Bernard wrote:
Which is probably what should have happened, unfortunately it seems a large majority of bishops and clergy had no problem with it (the changes).


Yes. Which to me, and many others, is a very considerable mystery. All of those priests and bishops and other clergy were supposed to know far more about the Faith than simple laity, yet most of them "fell away". I repeat: it is a great mystery.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
Yes, I agree that to say that whatever the priest is saying in another language means what it says in the Latin rite is ridiculous.


I would not necessarily agree with that statement: it would depend on the faithfulness of the words in English to what is meant in the Latin. I have spent considerable time and money translating many documents from Italian to English, and, although it can be extremely difficult at times, it most certainly is possible to put into English the exact same thoughts and ideas expressed in the Italian. The same would be true for any other set of languages.

Bernard wrote:
In fact, to say the Latin rite in English would make it a different rite in my opinion.


I would agree with that statement, but not from the basis of "meaning". After all, there are many acceptable rites in the Catholic Church which are not in Latin, yet convey the same meanings as the Latin, and are equally valid.

Bernard wrote:
If the celebrant is speaking in English it's not a translation, an English translation would be if the priest was speaking in Latin and there was someone else next to him translating what he said into English for the people to hear. That is a side issue though.


Yes...to both statements.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Last edited by Ken Gordon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
This speech from Lefebvre in 1976 shows that Lefebvre new the Paul VI was not the pope. translation on the screen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzvNrX-FTyk


I know this speech. Archbishop Lefebvre, at most, had some moment of "theological lucidity" about the Authority of the Pope and in some occasion he said that the vacance of the See was a valid hypothesis, une hypothèse valable.

Bernard wrote:
Yes they said that but they may not have been speaking infallibly when they said it. I'm not an expert on it but there are some pretty specific requirements for a pope to speak ex cathedra.


In the case of the doctrine on religious liberty of the 'council', for example, there are all the requirements for the ex cathedra magisterium.

Bernard wrote:
Again, I know the whole thing was a fraud, they forced people to obey the council under penalty of excommunication (Fr. Normandine in Canada for one) and of course only anti-popes could do that but is there a clear case where they spoke ex cathedra in error.


Yes, of course Bernard. It is the case of the doctrine on religious liberty proposed by Dignitatis humanae.


Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Ken Gordon wrote:
First of all, no anti-pope can speak "ex cathedra". Only a True Pope can do so. In any case, I have seen more than one discussion of whether or not any of the present crop of anti-popes has spoken "ex cathedra", and none of them ever have.

Not only do they not fulfill one of the primary requirements (the person must be the True Pope), but they have not fulfilled some of the other requirements either. I do not remember the specific details, but I do remember the conclusion.


No, dear Ken. To remain at the example of the doctrine on religious liberty, it is sure that this doctrine is proposed infallibly. Obviously, it is infallible in law and not in fact, because Paul VI had not papal Authority. But if Paul VI had been Pope (impossible, I repeat) the act of 'magisterium' on religious liberty would have all the necessary requirements for the infallibility.


Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Ken Gordon wrote:
Bernard wrote:
Yes, I agree that to say that whatever the priest is saying in another language means what it says in the Latin rite is ridiculous.


I would not necessarily agree with that statement: it would depend on the faithfulness of the words in English to what is meant in the Latin. I have spent considerable time and money translating many documents from Italian to English, and, although it can be extremely difficult at times, it most certainly is possible to put into English the exact same thoughts and ideas expressed in the Italian. The same would be true for any other set of languages.

TKGS wrote:
In fact, to say the Latin rite in English would make it a different rite in my opinion.


I would agree with that statement, but not from the basis of "meaning". After all, there are many acceptable rites in the Catholic Church which are not in Latin, yet convey the same meanings as the Latin, and are equally valid.

Perhaps you are familiar with the Sarum Rite of England?

TKGS wrote:
If the celebrant is speaking in English it's not a translation, an English translation would be if the priest was speaking in Latin and there was someone else next to him translating what he said into English for the people to hear. That is a side issue though.


Yes...to both statements.


Please note that you have attributed some quotes to me that are not mine.

I agree that one can indeed translate from any language to any other, however, I do not think that is what the ICEL did. They wrote an entirely new rite based on the Novus Ordo.

As for the Sarum Rite, it is my understanding that even this rite was said in Latin.


Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
TKGS wrote:
Please note that you have attributed some quotes to me that are not mine.


Oooops! Sorry. OK. I fixed that.

TKGS wrote:
As for the Sarum Rite, it is my understanding that even this rite was said in Latin.


Yes. That is my point. I guess I should have made it more clear. But it was a separate rite, despite being in Latin.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Gabriele wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
First of all, no anti-pope can speak "ex cathedra". Only a True Pope can do so. In any case, I have seen more than one discussion of whether or not any of the present crop of anti-popes has spoken "ex cathedra", and none of them ever have.

Not only do they not fulfill one of the primary requirements (the person must be the True Pope), but they have not fulfilled some of the other requirements either. I do not remember the specific details, but I do remember the conclusion.


No, dear Ken. To remain at the example of the doctrine on religious liberty, it is sure that this doctrine was proposed infallibly.


I disagree.

Gabriele wrote:
Obviously, it is infallible in law and not in fact,


Neither "in law" nor "in fact", since an invalid lawgiver cannot decree anything "in law", let alone "in fact".

Gabriele wrote:
because Paul VI had not papal Authority. But if Paul VI had been Pope (impossible, I repeat) the act of 'magisterium' on religious liberty would have all the necessary requirements for the infallibility.


So what? The fact is that Paul VI did not have papal authority, and neither did "his" "magisterium". Therefore, nothing he promulgated was infallible nor legal in any way. Neither "in fact" nor "in law". Those who believed his decrees to have any weight whatever were simply mistaken...or evil.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
double post


Last edited by Bernard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:43 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
First of all, no anti-pope can speak "ex cathedra". Only a True Pope can do so. In any case, I have seen more than one discussion of whether or not any of the present crop of anti-popes has spoken "ex cathedra", and none of them ever have.

Not only do they not fulfill one of the primary requirements (the person must be the True Pope), but they have not fulfilled some of the other requirements either. I do not remember the specific details, but I do remember the conclusion.


No, dear Ken. To remain at the example of the doctrine on religious liberty, it is sure that this doctrine is proposed infallibly. Obviously, it is infallible in law and not in fact, because Paul VI had not papal Authority. But if Paul VI had been Pope (impossible, I repeat) the act of 'magisterium' on religious liberty would have all the necessary requirements for the infallibility.


Ok, let's agree that he had no papal infallibility since he was an impostor, but did he meet the criteria which a true pope would need to make "the doctrine on religious liberty" infallible? Gabriele, you say yes, I've heard others say that as well. Obviously Levebvre did not think so. Let's try to resolve this.


Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:48 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
A long list of quotes which indicate that the Council was not intended to be infallible, however there are other quotes which indicate the opposite. So as usual, trying to come to any definitive answer will be difficult. Everything below in blue is from this website. Red is opposite view.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm

The Testimony of John XXIII

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the 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.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)"

The Testimony of Paul VI

The Theological Commission of the Council made a declaration, a nota previa (preliminary note), concerning the theological note of Vatican II on
March 6, 1964. Pope Paul VI had it read by the Council’s General Secretary, Pericle Cardinal Felici, who was the Prefect of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Council’s participants on November 16 of that year. It was intended to assure them that it was not an infallible council, before they gave their approval to the first conciliar text, that on the Church, Lumen Gentium. The declaration was published as an addendum to that text. It says that as the Council was intended to be “pastoral”, it should not be understood to be infallibly defining any matter unless it openly says so (which it never did).

“In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)

Cardinal Felici elaborated on this to Archbishop Lefebvre († 1991), who narrated his experience.

“Not necessarily. A non-dogmatic, pastoral council is not a recipe for infallibility. When, at the end of the sessions, we asked Cardinal Felici, “Can you not give us what the theologians call the “theological note of the Council?”” he replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 14, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church.”, p. 107)


And opposing arguments, (caution Peter Dimond's work)http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Was_Vatican_II_infallible.php

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.

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.


Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:36 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Traditio has written quite a bit about it in their library of files and he doesn't think it was intended to be infallible or met the criteria, bear in mind he also sees John XXIII as the last true pope.
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq08.txt


Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Ken Gordon wrote:
Neither "in law" nor "in fact", since an invalid lawgiver cannot decree anything "in law", let alone "in fact".


Ken Gordon wrote:
So what? The fact is that Paul VI did not have papal authority, and neither did "his" "magisterium". Therefore, nothing he promulgated was infallible nor legal in any way. Neither "in fact" nor "in law". Those who believed his decrees to have any weight whatever were simply mistaken...or evil.


Dear Ken, I have distinguished beetwen infallibility 'in law' and 'in fact' only to say that the act of 'magisterium' Dignitatis humanae has got all conditions required by the First Vatican Council so that there is an infallible teaching, if Paul VI was Pope. Bernard understood perfectly what I meant. It is not a guerardian distinction. That act, it is not an act of the Church. And it has no value. Of any kind.


Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:59 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Bernard wrote:
Ok, let's agree that he had no papal infallibility since he was an impostor, but did he meet the criteria which a true pope would need to make "the doctrine on religious liberty" infallible? Gabriele, you say yes, I've heard others say that as well. Obviously Levebvre did not think so. Let's try to resolve this.


Bernard, let's go to the point. What are the conditions required from the First Vatican Council to have a doctrine proposed infallibly?
1. The Pope has to speak not as private person or private theologian, but as Pope, as the teacher of all Christians.
2. He must turn to the whole Church, and not only to a diocese or only to a part of the Church.
3. The object of teaching must concern faith or morals.
4. He must define.
5. He must tie the whole Church.
The doctrine on religious liberty contained in Dignitatis Humanae encompasses all of these conditions.


Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:22 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:43 am
Posts: 38
New post Re: Is the Church still intact?
Gabriele wrote:
Bernard wrote:
Ok, let's agree that he had no papal infallibility since he was an impostor, but did he meet the criteria which a true pope would need to make "the doctrine on religious liberty" infallible? Gabriele, you say yes, I've heard others say that as well. Obviously Levebvre did not think so. Let's try to resolve this.


Bernard, let's go to the point. What are the conditions required from the First Vatican Council to have a doctrine proposed infallibly?
1. The Pope has to speak not as private person or private theologian, but as Pope, as the teacher of all Christians.
2. He must turn to the whole Church, and not only to a diocese or only to a part of the Church.
3. The object of teaching must concern faith or morals.
4. He must define.
5. He must tie the whole Church.
The doctrine on religious liberty contained in Dignitatis Humanae encompasses all of these conditions.


Traditio seems to think that the Pope did not intend for the council to be infallible, he also points to other councils that where condemned, even though they were called by legitimate popes and finally he says they are supposed to say something (according to Vatican I)to show that what is being promulgated is intended to be infallible.

However I have to admit that I'm not very convinced by his arguments. In fact I think Peter Dimond is closer to the mark when he says this.

"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.

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. "


Let's remember that when Paul VI was Archbishop of Milan he spent two weeks being trained by Saul Alinski. Alinski was closely connected to the Rockefellars and dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to "the first rebel, Satan". Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were both mentored by Alinski, and I don't think this is just a coincidence. The illuminati or the anti-Church, the brotherhood of darkness or whatever you want to call them had picked out Montini for the job of destroying the Church and sent their best men to make sure he knew what he was doing.

Of course the Council was invalid, but they made it out to be infallible. Then, when the hardliners started to question things they turn around and say "oh it was just pastoral, and actually the pope not really that thrilled with how it turned out" (yeah sure).

And I suppose one could prove that technically it's not infallible (if they were true popes) but that doesn't really matter because it's a fraud anyway.

Looking at it like this the SSPX position seems wrong. If the council was clearly not infallible then I'd be more comfortable with their position, and traditio's namely that we have room to deal with the current situation without declaring the pope an antipope, by just not going along with the innovations.


Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:45 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.