Show Me the Heresy

Some Vatican II apologists claim that the post-conciliar "popes", Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, never really professed heresy, and therefore could not lose authority. The statements were "ambiguous" or "able to be squeezed within the limits of orthodox teaching." Such is simply NOT the case. Let's look at (a) heresy defined and(b) heresy displayed by the alleged "pontiffs."

(A)Heresy

A heretic, according to Canon 1325.2 is “one who, after the reception of baptism pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths to believed by divine and Catholic faith.” The teaching must be an article “of divine and Catholic faith” that the Church has authentically proposed as such.
A prior ex cathedra or conciliar definition is not required. “The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful.” (See Michel, DTC 6:2215)

The heretic may deny the doctrine “in explicit or equivalent terms,” (See R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638. “verbis explicitis vel aequivalentibus.”) through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition.

(B) Heretical Teachings

• Justification: The October 31, 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification , approved by Ratzinger and John Paul II. This overthrows the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent concerning justification.


• The Church: The Declaration on Communion, the Ecumenical Directory and the Declaration Dominus Jesus, written by Ratzinger and approved by John Paul II.
  These documents promote the “Subsistent Superchurch” heresy, as Fr. Cekada calls it, which, among other things, denies an article of the Creed (“I believe in one Church”), as well as the proposition “outside the Church there is no salvation.”


• Actions such as JP II kissing the blasphemous Koran. Canonists and theologians teach that external heresy consists in dictis vel factis — not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.) Vatican II apologist Jimmy Akin (http://www.jimmyakin.org/) has tried to defend this kissing of the Koran because JPII may have wanted to show respect for "elements of truth" that the Islamic unholy book contains. Using the same logic, one could excuse kissing the Satanic Bible because it teaches "elements of truth" as well!


• Declaring "valid" a "mass" with no words of Consecration!!!

The list could go on and on, but one thing is for certain: it's much easier to point to the few instances of NON-HERETICAL statements and actions of the post-conciliar "popes" than the plethora of heresy the Unholy Fathers of Modernist Rome regularly pour forth leading to the damnation of souls.

Going to the Dogs

It has been reported by the Associated Press and at a web site CatholicCulture.org, that a dog named Trapper (owed by one Mr. Donald Keith) was allowed to receive "communion" with his owner at an Anglican Church in Toronto. Like the Vatican II sect, the Anglicans have no valid Apostolic Succession or True Mass, so the two only received bread, not Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under the appearance of bread. However, the Vatican II sect has become more and more like the Anglicans, who profess faith in almost anything, yet really believe nothing.

The Anglicans profess faith in the Real Presence, yet like their Vatican II counterparts, they have no sense of the sacred. Their actions tell us they do NOT believe in Christ's Real Presence. Did not Our Lord Himself tell us not to give "that which is Holy to dogs"? According to the report, Mr. Keith was asked to come up and receive communion by his minister, who gave communion to Trapper the dog. After receiving "communion" it was said that Trapper then "bent his head and said a little prayer." The Anglican bishop has done nothing to discipline his priest. He merely said it would not happen again. Peggy Needham, an official at the parish, said the complaint only came from one disgruntled person who e-mailed the bishop.

Before anyone says this was the Anglican Church, let's not forget how close to Anglicanism the Vatican II sect gets with each passing year. Standing and receiving communion in the hand, always allowed in the Anglican Church to tacitly negate faith in the Real Presence, was adopted by Vatican II "popes." Look at any Vatican II parish to see the scantily clad women handing out the Novus Ordo cracker to men dressed for the beach (at least during the summer). Watch as they sing inane songs like "Michael Rowed His Boat Ashore" and talk/laugh while going up to get the cracker. Sitting replaces kneeling after reception. Does anyone think it will be long before some Vatican II cleric like the Punk Priest thinks it's totally cool and bodacious to give the Novus Ordo cracker to a dog?

Hey, why not? After all, doesn't their Chief Heretic, Joseph Ratzinger fancy himself as their German Shepard?

Is Sedevacantism Heretical?

One Vatican II apologist, I(van) Shawn McElhinney, has posted what he terms a 'treatise' entitled, "A Prescription Against Traditionalism." The author mainly tries to vindicate the Novus Ordo "Mass" and rails against the so-called Traditionalists of the Society of St. Pius X. One part of his posting is optimistically called "A Refutation of the Heresy of Sedevacantism."Far from a refutation, it merely recycles arguments which either misrepresent the issue or have premises which are false.

I will present his arguments available at www.matt1618.freeyellow.com/sedevacantism.html and expose the fallacies.



1. Christ did not depose the Pharisees who conspired to put Him to death, so who are sedevacantists to declare the papacy vacant?



Answer: We do not depose popes and make declarations. The Church through Her theologians has taught that an heretical pope loses his authority ipso facto, by divine law. As theologian Billot explains "...having become an unbeliever, he (the pope) would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church." (See De Ecclesia, 5th edition,[1927],632). Sedevacantists recognize the fact of heresy and act accordingly. There is no legal declaration that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, but would Mr. McElhinney want to board a plane where he was the pilot? In the practical order you see the turban, recognize the fact of a terrorist (in the absence of any legal disposition), and stay off the plane. No legal declarations, just public determinations. The author's argument analogizing to the Pharisees (and making an attempt to satirize it using "The Revised Sedevacantist Version" of the Holy Bible) is very glib, but doesn't get him very far. First, the laws of the Old Testament were superceded by the New Testament, and second, the Church has already interpreted through Her appointed theologians what Scripture and Tradition mean. According to Her approved theologians, the Church has taught that nothing in the Bible or Tradition precludes the possibility of sedevacantism.



2. The definition of the first Vatican Council in 1870 dogmatically assures us there will be "perpetual successors" in the papacy, therefore to claim that the papal throne is vacant is heretical.



Answer: Pure theological and historical ignorance. According to theologian Dorsch (See de Ecclesia, 2:191-192), the definition was directed against heretics who contended that either (a) the Primacy was a power that was given by Christ to St. Peter ALONE, or (b) Christ did not intend the Primacy to be passed perpetually to his successors, but it would either die with St. Peter or pass along to the episcopal college. Mr. McElhinney and his Vatican II sect apologists would have us believe that the definition of Vatican I means that except for a brief period of interregnum between the death of one pope and the election of another, we must always have a living, breathing pope on St.Peter's Throne.
As theologian Salavarri devotes 23 dense pages to this issue (See de Ecclesia, 1:385), the Church tells us that the papacy is an INSTITUTION whose rights and duties will endure in perpetuity, and does not teach that there must always be a man to fill that position.

3. Papal legislation regarding conclaves promulgated by Pope Pius XII allows Masons/heretics to be validly elected as pope.

Answer: The declaration Vacante Sede Apostolis is irrelevant to the issue of sedevacantism. Heresy is an impediment of divine law, that prohibits a man from receiving papal authority (See Coronata, Inst. I. C. 1:312, wherein "Heretics and apostates [at least public ones] are therefore excluded {from being pope}." To be free from heresy and apostasy, he explains, is a requirement to become pope "by DIVINE LAW"--emphasis mine. Hence, the contention that Pope Pius can dispense from Divine Law is false as NO HUMAN AUTHORITY CAN DO SO! Pius dispensed only from impediments of ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

Mr. McElhinney claims that it is "impossible to embrace sedevacantism and not be a heretic." The facts prove otherwise. While he derides sedevacantists as theological "amateurs" and scoffs at "proof-texting," he nevertheless doesn't understand the Church documents he cites!! McElhinney's "Prescription", far from being medicinal, is pure theological poison that should result in a lawsuit for malpractice. In reality, it is impossible to embrace Ivan Shawn McElhinney's poor attempt at argumentation and not be an ignoramus.

The Traditional Dedication of the Twelve Months of the Year

While the Vatican II sect downplays and denies miracles and the supernatural, we Traditionalists should not forget to add some prayer or devotion to the Subject which the Church holds up for our special consideration.

January.....The Holy Name of Jesus

February.....The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

March.....St. Joseph

April.....The Most Holy Eucharist

May....The Most Blessed Virgin Mary

June....The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus

July...The Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ

August.....The Immaculate Heart of Mary

September.....Our Lady of Sorrows

October.....The Most Holy Rosary

November....The Holy Souls in Purgatory

December.....The Divine Infancy of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Shades of Gray

"Fr." Kevin Gray of the Vatican II Archdiocese of Hartford, Conn. has been arrested. This is nothing new in Vatican II-land. The real shocker seems to be that they have ANY priests not under indictment! I'm bringing out this case NOT to "prove" the sect is false. Even in the True Church there have been scoundrels, starting with Judas Iscariot chosen by Our Lord Himself! Rather, the scandals show how they are the logical outgrowth of Vatican II's ecumenical worldview which necessarily encompasses relativistic morality.

According to CBS News, 64 yr old Fr. Gray had been embezzling money since January 2003, to the tune of approximately 1.3 MILLION dollars!! What did he do with the money? He spent it on a lavish sodomite lifestyle: high class restaurants, top rated hotels, and high priced male prostitutes. He then paid his catamites rent and put one through Harvard (an act of 'Charity'?). When asked by police why he did it he claimed that he thought the "Church owed it to me, because I was unhappy with my assignments." What has happened to him? He has been suspended while awaiting trial, but not excommunicated. Apb. Lori, of Hartford, apparently "overlooked" Gray's failure to submit annual finance reports because he is a "popular" priest! To top it all off, Fr. Gray told his parishioners that he had terminal cancer in an attempt to elicit sympathy when his scandal broke.

What does all this tell us about Vatican II? Lots:

1. Since 1972, candidates with "same sex attraction" were no longer officially barred from entering Vatican II seminaries; unofficially the practice began in the late 1960s, right when Gray was admitted. The focus shifted from the theological to secular psychology not in alignment with Traditional Church teaching. Homosexuality was not a moral disorder to be overcome, you were "born that way." It didn't disqualify you for service in the Church because keeping such a person surrounded by men was not seen as an "occasion of sin" to be avoided. Sin is negative theology!

2. The priesthood is seen as a "job" or "career" not a vocation--a sacred calling by God. How many times in the corporate world do you hear of embezzlers feeling like they got the short end of the stick? Priests talk of retirement packages and benefits as if this were a secular job. With the sense of the sacred trashed by Vatican II's promotion of man-centered, Modernist theological heresy, the priesthood is not seen as a sacred calling from God and the need to make sacrifices (working until death or physically/mentally unable) is disappeared. So now if you don't like your assignments, don't do them well and offer up the hardship to Christ. No, the Church "owes" you the "right" to steal money and break your vows to commit the unnatural vice with young sodomites for sale. Likewise, Holy Matrimony is no longer viewed as a vocation, so if you're not being "fulfilled" as you think you should, get a divorce--and the Vatican II equivalent of a quick "annulment" will follow. This man, Kevin Gray, is an apostate who has no fear of God (if, indeed, Gray ever believed in Him in the first place). Stealing from Church and faking terminal illness? Heathens of old had better standards of morality.

3. There are no consequences for your actions. "Bishops" will cover up for their "popular" perverts. If a priest were popular for saying unpopular (true) things (e.g.condemning pre-marital sex, denying communion for abortion politicians), he would have been strictly scrutinized. When the late, great Fr. Paul Wickens left the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, to abjure the heresies of Vatican II and offer the True Mass and Sacraments in a chapel, he was "excommunicated." To be Catholic is the only crime! Gray is still "in good standing" while suspended from all priestly functions!!

4.This is the sad legacy of Vatican II. Some of Gray's parishioners actually attempted a "defense" of his actions. But what can one expect when the lines of right and wrong, black and white are all blurred? The color represented by our indicted sodomite-embezzler's name says it all.

Two Rites Make a Wrong

Three years after Joseph Ratzinger allowed the 1962 version of the Mass to be used without restriction (see Summorum Pontificum--hereinafter SP), it should be worthwhile to see what we have learned:

1. According to Ratzinger's own document, the True Mass (called the "Extraordinary Form"), are "two uses of the one Roman Rite" (SP, para. #1). This means that members of the Vatican II sect are schizophrenic. The anthropomorphic Novus Ordo with it's focus on the Assembly ("People of God") and bastardized words of consecration recited in an "Institution Narrative" is just another use of the God-centered Traditional Mass. The "Punk Priest's" use of AC/DC is just another use of Gregorian Chant(see posting of 6/30/10). Can anyone seriously maintain this position with a straight face?

2. The Motu Mass is NOT the 1962 Missal. It's an amalgamation of sorts. SP para. #6 states that "Scripture readings may be proclaimed in the vernacular." Indeed, according to "Fr." Gary Dickson in England, he allows the laity to "proclaim the readings" in the vernacular at a microphone stand facing the people. He also allows for reception of communion in the hand. Does anybody old enough to remember 1962 recall ANY of these sacrilegious practices? Ratzinger also modified SP at the urging of the Jews to allow only the Novus Ordo version of Holy Week in Latin or the vernacular. The reason? The unecumenical (and therefore sinful!!) term "perfidious Jews" in the Traditional Mass calling for the (horrors!) CONVERSION of the Jews to Catholicism! So, some priests will use 1962 (minus Holy Week which must be full-blown Novus Ordo), some use parts of 1965 inserted (Canon read aloud), some other priests will make use of Vatican II inventions a la Fr. Dickson. The Motu Mass should really be called the 'Forrest Gump Liturgy', because just like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.

3. As the late Traditionalist priest, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher once sagaciously noted, "Once there are no more valid priests, they will allow the True Mass." Yes, indeed, nearly 40 years after Holy Orders was rendered "absolutely null and utterly void" in 1968, Ratzinger allows for (some distorted form) of a real Mass, knowing full well that many of the "priests" who will attempt to offer it are mere layman. No real priest, no real Mass.

4. In SP, Ratzinger tells us his reasons for allowing (some form of) the True Mass is"...a form of encounter...particularly suited to them{the 'People of God'}..." It's a "sacrality which attracts many people" Compare this with Pope St. Pius X, the foe of Modernist heretics:"Everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or needs." (Encyclical Pascendi, speaking about Modernists and the Sacraments).

Conclusion: Ratzinger has allowed the Motu Mass in an attempt to lure unsuspecting souls who have just found Traditionalism, into his clutches. His Wickedness wants you in his One World Ecumenical religion, and he will give you ANYTHING you want to get you there. Well, everything except this: The Integral Roman Catholic Faith, Mass, and Sacraments. Be warned!!

Reconciling Penance with the New Order

Many in the Counterfeit Church of Vatican II are unaware how the Modernist heretics have destroyed not merely the Most Holy Sacrifice of The Mass, but all the Sacraments as well (with the possible exceptions of Baptism and Marriage). By destroying the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the Vatican II sect has destroyed the Episcopate and Priesthood and the five Sacraments that depend on a valid Apostolic Succession (for an in-depth treatment of how the heretics invalidated Holy Orders see Fr. Cekada's scholarly article "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" at http://www.traditionalmass.org/).

Some Traditionalists feel that it is OK to confess their sins to a priest validly ordained in the Traditional Rite (used prior to 1968), but adheres to the Vatican II sect. There are many problems with this idea. As every True Catholic knows, each Sacrament is composed of matter (the sensible thing or action), and form (the necessary words that determine the meaning of the matter), performed by the proper minister (one who has the power to act "in the Person of Christ" for that Sacrament), who joins the matter and form to confect the Sacramental Sign with the Intention of doing what the Church does in the administration of the Sacrament. In addition, the recipient of the Sacrament must have the intention to receive it and place no obex, or obstacle in the way(i.e. the female sex is an invalidating obex to the reception of Holy Orders).

If any of the aforementioned requirements are defective, the Sacrament is null and void. Assuming we have a validly ordained priest (whose ordination was in 1958 for argument's sake), can we go to him for confession if no Traditionalist priest is available? Outside the danger of death the answer must be a resounding NO!!!

Reasons:

1.The priest is an apostate. He has broken his Anti-Modernist Oath and follows the new tenets of the Concilliar religion, bereft of all Catholicism. A Greek Orthodox priest is validly ordained, but is outside the True Church--he is a schismatic (actually a heretic as he denies the Divine Institution and prerogatives of the Papacy) and outside danger of death, you may not approach a schismatic or heretic for Confession.

2.The Rite itself is quite possibly defective. No longer called "Penance" (negative theology), the Feel Good Church of the Punk Priest (see post of 6/28/10) has renamed it "Reconciliation." Even if you could confess to a heretic, you still may not have your sins Sacramentally forgiven. The Confessional has been replaced with the "Reconciliation Room" wherein you have a "rap session" with the priest who now functions as a sort of social worker. In many cases, the "rap" takes place where you are "face to face" which may make a penitent less likely to confess really serious sins out of shame and embarrassment. (There was a reason for the anonymous screen Confessional!) If you wind up in such a situation and omit a mortal sin, your confession is null and void--plus the added sin of a bad confession!

3. Sometimes the Vatican II sect priests make up their own form of the Sacrament, thus invalidating confession with such "absolutions" as "May Our Lord Bless You." A nice Blessing but NOT an absolution from sin!

4. Even adherents of their own sect may not be forgiven with a valid priest because the Vatican II laymen (esp. those born after 1970), are not taught to have a firm resolution to avoid sin and amend their lives. Without this resolution, there is an obex on the part of the recipient that renders it invalid.

Conclusion: Outside of the danger of death, Traditionalists must never approach a Vatican II priest for Penance, whether such priest is validly ordained or not. The once sacred seal of confession is now gone and replaced with little more than psychobabble in a reconciliation room designed to seal your fate.