This past Friday, November 21, 2014, marked the 50th anniversary of the date on which the defection of the hierarchy became morally certain and the Vatican II sect was born. This was brought to my attention by a fellow Traditionalist. He had come across the writings of a man who had written an article stating that the day on which Lumen Gentium was signed by Paul VI was the first clear, notorious, and unequivocal statement of heresy produced by the Vatican. After reading a copy of the article, which was sent to me, I am convinced that the author is correct.
The pope cannot promulgate error, but Lumen Gentium contains the heresy that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church; clearly implying that it subsists elsewhere. This heresy has been coined by Fr. Cekada as "Frankenchurch." Many sects "stitched together" to make the "Church of Christ." A closer look at this document from robber council Vatican II is in order as the sect it spawned lauds and defends it. The National Catholic (sic) Reporter just published an article entitled "Lumen Gentium at 50:Is Anyone Listening?" The author, "Fr." Brian Mullady, tries to spin Lumen Gentium in an orthodox and sanitized way. After telling us Vatican II was a "self-examination" by the Church, he writes the following:
"Though the Church’s self-examination was hailed by many, what is actually taught in Lumen Gentium has not always been made clear to the faithful. To understand the true nature of the renewal sought by Pope John XXIII, a celebration of this document requires a fresh examination of what it actually teaches — not what the subsequently dubbed “spirit of the Council” held it should have taught."
This admission proves the exact opposite of what Mullady proposes: the Magisterium must teach clearly or it ceases to teach at all. The false dichotomy between the "true teaching" and the false "spirit of the Council" is manifest. In attempting to demonstrate that Vatican II teachings on ecclesiology don't contradict previous teachings of the Magisterium, it implies (at face value), that they do. Catholics are obliged to adhere to a dogma, as the Anti-Modernist Oath professes, "always and in the same sense and with the same interpretatation" (eodum sensu eadumque semper sententia).
Yet here we are a half century later with Mullady jumping through flaming hermeneutical hoops trying to prove Vatican II and the post-concilliar "popes" haven't changed anything. Nothing like this ever occurred at a True Council, such as Trent and Vatican I. He continues,
"The Church constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.” (Lumen Gentium, 8) Much was made of the expression that the Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church, as if the Catholic Church was just one religious expression which enjoyed equal truth with others. The Holy See sought to clarify the meaning of this expression in the document Dominus Iesus."
There is no such thing as "full communion" or "partial communion" with the True Roman Catholic Church. You'll see this Modernist talk a little later in his article. The Modernists don't claim that Truth is equal in all sects; merely that "some truth" is just as good and salvific as "full truth." How much "truth" you have is determined by how many "elements" of truth you possess in common with the Catholic Church. The greater the elements, the greater the "partial communion." The True Church has always condemned this idea:
Pope Pius IX: "None [of these religious societies differing among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one, Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity." (Iam Vos Omnes--emphasis mine)
Pope Leo XIII: "Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits - but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible - since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: " 'I believe in one...Church.' "(Statis Cognitum--emphasis mine)
Pope Pius XI: "It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members."(Mortialum Animos--emphasis mine)
Pope Pius XI: "It is to depart from divine truth to imagine a Church which one can neither see nor touch, which would be nothing more than spiritual in which numerous Christian communities would be united by an invisible bond, even though they are divided in faith."(Ibid--emphasis mine)
Furthermore, it takes 34 years to "clarify" what the document meant? Heretic Fr. Yves Conger knew quite well what it meant when he wrote:
"The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute "Roman" missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body. Thus they are telling us (in Gaudium et Spes) that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the "Roman" Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic Christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it." Le Concile de Vatican II, (Paris: Beauchesne) p. 160. (Emphasis mine.)
Mallady presses on:
"The Church also clarifies that full communion in the society of the Church is characterized by “visible bonds of communion,” which include “profession of one faith received from the apostles; common celebration of divine worship, especially the sacraments; apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family” (Catechism, 815; also in The Code of Canon Law, 205)"
More clarification! Mullady's Magisterium is one that no longer exists--it was replaced by a hodgepodge of clarifications. No longer can you trust a single document. You must have it "clarified" numerous times by Wotyla's 1992 Catechism, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and Ratzinger's declaration in 2000. You'd be better off being a Protestant and relying on sola scriptura; it's just as heretical, but so much less confusing!
In sum, Mr. Mullady, you are correct, Vatican II does NOT teach that all religions are equal, but rather,"all religions are more or less good." Furthermore, the Protestants are members of the Church of Christ. This is asserted about all these sects, even though they all adhere to heresy.
Vatican II ecclesiology teaches this: that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and of the means of salvation, whereas the others have only a partial serving of these things. Their lack does not prevent them, however, from being members of the Church of Christ and attaining salvation as heretics! This is not the same as Baptism of Desire which is on an individual basis. Vatican II claims that Protestant sects, as such, are corporate bodies that can lead souls to Heaven. (See Unitatis Redintegratio #3)
Mr. Mullady asks us in his article if "anyone is listening" to Lumen Gentium, and the teachings of Vatican II. The unfortunate answer is yes; and they're headed for perdition.
Last sunday, our priest stated during the homily,the book of Daniel states the great apostasy will last until the end of time upon its inception.I still pray for lost souls as time is running out.ReplyDelete
What is the best book or website that teaches and defends the TRUE Catholic Faith? We are trying to get through to loved ones that protestantism and novus ordo are false and wrong.A simple plain spoken fact based book is what we need at the moment.Thank you.ReplyDelete
Against the Vatican II sect, I recommend the book "What Has Happened to the Catholic Church" by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI. For a one volume against Protestantism and in defense of True Catholicism, I would recommend "The Faith of Our Fathers" by James Cardinal Gibbons. Good luck on your proselytism! I'll be keeping you in my prayers!ReplyDelete
Speaking of Vatican 2,I was confirmed in the novus ordo by an invalid 'priest'.Personally I think my confirmation is null & void.On top of this,my Father was my sponsor.Would it be prudent to seek a traditional Bishop and be re-confirmed?Presently attend a traditional catholic church with a valid priest as pastor.He personally will not re-confirm saying it's tantamount to over ruling the holy spirit.What is your personal opinion?I have read your blog and trust you are educated and knowledgeable in our Catholic Faith.ReplyDelete
Thank you for your kind words. What upsets me is that you write about being confirmed by a Vatican II "priest." In the Latin Rite, outside the danger of death, the Ordinary minister of Confirmation is a validly consecrated bishop. Any Vatican II priest who attempts such a Confirmation is not only doing so invalidly, but also committing a huge sacrilege.ReplyDelete
I, too, was "confirmed" in the Vatican II sect at age 13. I became a Traditionalist in 1981 at age 16. There is no doubt the "Confirmation" was invalid. The "bishop" was an invalidly consecrated priest and I was not (Del gratias) in danger of death. Throw on top of this that both matter and form have been substantially altered.
My advice to you is to do as I did and get confirmed by a Traditionalist Bishop. The priest to whom you now go is probably not a sedevacantist, and considers all Vatican II sect "Sacraments" as valid. Nevertheless, in the SSPX, and SSPX-SO, and even sedevacantist SSPV, they will confirm you "sub conditione" (conditionally) so that if in the unlikely case the sacrament was valid, there would be no "overruling of the Holy Spirit" ( whatever that phrase means). If you were not confirmed (and I'm convinced you were not) then you would be validly confirmed from that day forward. I don't know anything about this priest, but I suggest you get confirmed conditionally by a Traditionalist Bishop, and try to find a better priest. He really doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about especially if he tells you HE won't confirm you, not being a bishop. This is basic dogmatic theology. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Good luck and God bless you. I'll keep you in my prayers.
I'd also like to add that the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Vatican II sect Sacrament of Confirmation, due to substantial defect in both matter and form, is invalid per se, even if administered by a validly consecrated bishop.ReplyDelete
OK thank you for responding.I agree with you 100%.In regards to the priest at my church,I forgot to say he is a traditional valid bishop.(Sorry I was tired and chilling out from stressful day) However he is of opinion that I was in error during my confirmation.The fact that I didn't know better at the time means I had best intentions.So he suggested I make a profession of faith,recite anthanasian creed,and if I still felt my confirmation was invalid,to seek out a traditional bishop outside Vatican 2 sect.Thank you for response and blog,it's enjoyable to read.ReplyDelete
One last comment,thank you for kind words & advice.The SSPV wouldn't reconfirm me due to my Pastor being a Thuc priest/bishop.So I will try the SSPX church in town.If that is hopeless, my last option is a former SSPX priest who now operates independent.Hopefully he will know a traditional Bishop.My word,can you imagine what Pius V would think about our present day catholic situation?ReplyDelete
I can't imagine what St. Pius V or St. Pius X would think of the Vatican II sect and how they would weep to see the faithful reduced to a handful. You sound like you have a good plan for Confirmation. Although I still can't comprehend why a Thuc line Traditionalist Bishop wouldn't conditionally confirm you. There is more than enough doubt to justify doing it.ReplyDelete
The Bishop in question is THEE ONLY BISHOP I've met or heard of that refuses to re-confirm.Even my fellow parishioners disagree with him.Other than this,he is theologically sound in every way,which makes his opinion about confirmation even more confusing.Even his superiors and fellow priest in their order agree with us.ReplyDelete
G-d bless too BrotherReplyDelete
(Sorry forgot to add that)
Ever heard of Bishop Webster in Knoxville? Someone recommended him but I don't know anything about his background.Delete
Sorry I can't help. I've never heard of him.ReplyDelete
Just to let you know I contacted Bishop Webster.He is good conservative valid catholic bishop.He was consecrated by Bishop Slupski.After going over my catechism for a few months,Bishop Webster will re-confirm me, Deo Gratias.ReplyDelete
Glad to hear it all worked out!Delete
Congratulations on your upcoming Confirmation as a " soldier of Christ."
To anyone reading this, Neal Webster is a feenyite.Delete
See also: https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/neal-webster-fails-at-joseph-pfeiffer-consecration/Delete