"St." John Paul the Great (Apostate) is continually lauded by the so-called conservative members of the Vatican II sect for two reasons; his stance against abortion and his anti-Communism. It's true he towed the line regarding the Church's teaching on abortion. Wojtyla was an actor, and what a great act he put on for those who didn't understand the Faith, yet desperately wanted to believe "the essentials" hadn't changed after Vatican II. Unfortunately, no one stopped to realize that abortion reached catastrophic proportions precisely because Wojtyla simultaneously helped push for the removal of Catholicism as the State religion. Countries that never had legal abortion (Belgium, Ireland, Spain, etc) fell as part of the "culture of death" once the influence of Catholicism was gone. After all, the "Church of Christ" subsists in all sects as Vatican II teaches.
As to Communism, Wojtyla is wrongfully regarded as its foe. There is much in his heretical teachings that went against true Church teaching on the evils of Marxism in all its forms. This post will expose the capitulation to Socialist and Marxists tenets by a "saint" of the Vatican II sect.
Is The Social Doctrine of the Church "The Soul of Marxism"?
In 1993, JPII made the following remarks:
The conditions that gave rise historically to this system [Marxism] were very real and serious. The system of exploitation, to which inhuman capitalism had submitted the proletariat since the beginning of the industrial revolution, represented a true iniquity that the social doctrine of the Church openly condemned. At depth, the latter [Church social doctrine] was the soul of truth of Marxism, thanks to which it can present itself in a fascinating way in Western societies themselves. (See L'Osservatore Romano, September 11, 1993; Emphasis mine) Here, "St." Wojtyla calls Church social teaching "the soul" of the demonic system of Karl Marx. What can you expect from a man who praises the Communist Manifesto in one of his "encyclicals"? Yes, you read that correctly. In 1981, JPII wrote Laborem Exercens, and in section #8 we read:
It was precisely one such wide-ranging anomaly that gave rise in the last century to what has been called "the worker question", sometimes described as "the proletariat question." This question and the problems connected with it gave rise to a just social reaction and caused the impetuous emergence of a great burst of solidarity between workers, first and foremost industrial workers. The call to solidarity and common action addressed to the workers-especially to those engaged in narrowly specialized, monotonous and depersonalized work in industrial plants, when the machine tends to dominate man - was important and eloquent from the point of view of social ethics. It was the reaction against the degradation of man as the subject of work, and against the unheard-of accompanying exploitation in the field of wages, working conditions and social security for the worker. This reaction united the working world in a community marked by great solidarity...Following the lines laid dawn by the Encyclical Rerum Novarum...it must be frankly recognized that the reaction against the system of injustice and harm that cried to heaven for vengeance and that weighed heavily upon workers in that period of rapid industrialization was justified from the point of view of social morality.(Emphasis mine)
Without mentioning the Communist Manifesto, JPII clearly agrees with its cry, "Proletarians of the whole world unite." Wojtyla mentions the great Pope Leo XIII, in my opinion one of the holiest and most underrated popes of all time, as supporting this view by "following the lines" he laid down. Pope Leo XIII was a theological giant; did he lay the foundation for Wojtyla's teaching? Hardly. Here's what that great pontiff taught in Quod Apostolici Muneris:
You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning - the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.(#1)
Hence, by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by Him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. The supernatural truths of faith having been assailed and cast out as though hostile to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of the human race has been slowly and little by little banished from the universities, the lyceums and gymnasia-in a word, from every public institution. (#2)
For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: "for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness? (#5; Emphasis mine)
Wojtyla on Private Property
From Laborum Exercens, JPII teaches:
Christian tradition has never upheld this right [to private property] as absolute and untouchable...
As mentioned above, property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of "capital" in opposition to "labor"-and even to practice exploitation of labor-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labor, they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownership or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labor, and thus, by serving labor, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labor and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. (#14)
Compare Pope Pius IX in Qui Pluribus:
To this goal also tends the unspeakable doctrine of Communism, as it is called, a doctrine most opposed to the very natural law. For if this doctrine were accepted, the complete destruction of everyone’s laws, government, property, and even of human society itself would follow. (Emphasis mine).
Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum:
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. (#15; Emphasis mine)
This consistent image, in which the principle of the primacy of person over things is strictly preserved, was broken up in human thought. The break occurred in such a way that labor was separated from capital and set in opposition to it, and capital was set in opposition to labor, as though they were two impersonal forces, two production factors juxtaposed in the same "economistic perspective." (Laborem Exercens, 13].
In a 1993 interview with Jas Gawronski, JPII said, "If present day capitalism is improved, it is in great part because of the good things realized by communism: the fight against unemployment, concern for the poor. Capitalism, on the other hand, is individualistic." (See http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6975%26eng%3Dy.html?refresh_ce; Emphasis mine)
Although no one needs to accept private revelations, I do believe in the Church-approved apparition of Our Lady of Fatima. She warned us that "Russia would spread her errors." Wojtyla has done exactly that. Using the heretical Modernist ideology of the Robber Council Vatican II (at which Archbishop Wojtyla was a huge Modernist ideologue), he systematically pushed for the removal of Catholicism as the State religion. While posturing as anti-Communist, he reversed the social teachings of the true popes (especially Pope Leo XIII) in subtle ways so as to weaken opposition to socialism and Communism. To speak of "the good things realized by Communism" is insanity, no less than if it were said that having fewer people for whom to care is because of the "good things realized by genocide and abortion."
Bergoglio has sold out to Beijing, and even "Cardinal" Zen of Hong Kong criticized the Modernist Vatican of forcing "bishops" to retire in favor of overt Communists picked by the Chinese Communist Party. We have a "Communist saint" in Oscar Romero. Pope Pius XI taught in his great Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." Nor can a socialist-Communist pushing prelate from Poland be a pope or a saint.
To see how communists treat a true Catholic Cardinal, read about Hungarian Jozef Cardinal Mindszenty. The fact that Wojtyla did not get the "Mindszenty" treatment tells me he was an "useful idiot."ReplyDelete
You’re too kind—Wojtyla was a “fellow traveler.”
I will never understand why Cardinal Mindszenty didnt confer traditional Holy Orders on a few priests and diaconate seminarians?Delete
Great article. Reading it remind me of how in conservative circles neocons lionize “St.” Reagan as the great anti-communist crusader when the man did more to ship American manufacturing to communist China than anyone before or since.ReplyDelete
Iff topic but it seems to me that we “won” the Cold War not because we defeated the ideology of communism but because we adopted and normalized the socialist revolutions of the 60’s, thus the bulwark of the Soviet Union was withdrawn because it wasn’t needed anymore. After all I am highly suspicious of a country which sent 20 million people to die at the front in ww2 collapse because of economic reasons.
Anyways I think your article underscores the point that, like Reagan, JP2 was to the public presented as a great anti-communist crusader. Similarly to Reagan JP2 however was a great supporter to the revolution as he presided over the normalization of the social revolution, and conciliar revolution, which swept western countries, and the church respectively. Thus with one hand he supposedly wielded the sword against the red tide, but with the other he held the knife which stabbed us in the back making him all the more insidious and perfidious.
Thank you for your analyses. They are like oxygen to breath!ReplyDelete
Thank you my friend! Comments like this keep me writing!Delete
Ryan, your analysis reminds me of an argument I heard a while back between people arguing whether Reagan or JPII was the more influential figure responsible for the fall of the Berlin wall. It reminds me of the people arguing between "conservative" and "liberal" bishops in the conciliar sect...no matter who wins, they're still wrong.ReplyDelete
Introibo, I chuckled wondering if your second sentence was a typo, was intentional, or was a so-called "Freudian slip". Did Wojtyla "toe the line" as in keep his toes inside of it, or did he "tow the line" as in, hitch it up behind his "papacy" and move the line altogether?
On a more serious note, to take the Devil's advocate position, in your quoted passage from Laborem Exorcens, could not Wojtyla have been arguing simply that the deplorable working conditions and the exploitation of workers during the early period of the Industrial Revolution demanded a reaction, and that the mere fact of the reaction was justified, even if the specifics of the reaction (Communism) were not morally justifiable? After all, defrauding a worker of his just wages is accurately described as a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. I understand that elsewhere he says Catholic social doctrine is the soul of truth of Marxism, which can be read as favoring Marxism, but could it not also be read as saying that whatever is true in Marxism is that which it shares with Catholic social doctrine, which may be true insofar as it goes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting JPII was a pope, much less a saint (see Koran kissing and Assisi), but if these things can be read in an "orthodox" understanding, then it's hard to use them to point out his errors to those who think of him as a "saint".
Thank you for your articles, I look forward to reading them every Monday.
Thank you for the kind words my friend. As to the second sentence, I wish I could claim being profound, but it was merely a typo. Since you make it sound good, I think I’ll keep it!
As to your query, you actually put your finger on what’s wrong with Wojtyla’s statements. First, the Magisterium must teach unambiguously. What good is a teaching authority which cannot teach?
The Church teaches that God doesn't allow ambiguity to be taught by the Church!
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos,January 6, 1928:
"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men."
Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorum Fidei, of August 28, 1794:
"In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.”
Second, Wojtyla thrives on the false ecclesiology of Vatican II. Think about it.
You write, “...whatever is true in Marxism is that which it shares with Catholic social doctrine, which may be true insofar as it goes”
Take that phrase, replace “Marxism” with “Protestantism” and omit the word “social.” You have V2 ecclesiology! It is this idea that there are “elements of truth” in evil that somehow makes them good or at least tolerable. That’s why he kissed the abominable Koran—it has elements of truth. By logical extension he could have kissed the Satanic Bible!!
"After all, the "Church of Christ" subsists in all sects as Vatican II teaches."ReplyDelete
This is absolute stupidity. You are not a competent theologian to even be analyzing these text. As the saying goes, pride goes before the fall. You don't recognize your own intellectual limits, and have not sought the counsel of those more competent than you. Consequently, you have fallen into the heresy of sedevacantism.
If you are truly interested in learning the *true* teachings of Vatican II and not some caricture, you can contact any of these individuals:
Dr. Christian Washburn
Dr. Stephen A Hipp
Dr. Christopher Malloy
Dr. Eduardo Echeverria
Sedevacantism is “heresy”? Gee, you mean all those theologians and Doctors of the Church (like St Alphonsus Liguori) taught heresy?Delete
In Lumen Gentium, there is a heretical dichotomy between the Church Of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church. The Church Of Christ subsists in its fullness in the RC Church because it has all the “elements.” However, The Church Of Christ subsists in other sects according to how many elements they possess. To have all the elements is best, but only to have some is good too.
That’s why Unitatis Redintegratio could heretically teach that false sects are a “means of salvation.” Something NEVER TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH—indeed, they were taught to be a MEANS OF DAMNATION.
Finally, I have no desire to have heretics explain away their Modernism and that of the Vatican II sect. If any of the individuals you list would like to debate me in a neutral forum, I’d be happy to oblige.
It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that anyone who says “There is no Catholic God” cannot be the Catholic pope. God and a true pope must be Catholic by definition. The Catholic Church is the Bride Of Christ to whom He is united—His One True Church.
Typical modernist semi-trad. After 55 years, no one understands the TRUE teachings of Vatican 2! No, we must go to four (spin) doctors to explain it for us.Delete
The 2,000 year old infallible magisterium of the true Catholic Church is plainly worded and clear to understand by all peoples in all times. True popes have even explicitly defined the papacy as the bastion of clear catholic thinking. Not anymore! We cannot expect to understand our own faith, it must be double checked by apparatchiks so the sheep who ask too many questions don't stray off the ranch.
You probably had to read 4 different websites to rationalize how Francis did not commit apostasy in Abu Dhabi two weeks ago...
You’re got V2 apologists MO !
"In Lumen Gentium, there is a heretical dichotomy between the Church Of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church. The Church Of Christ subsists in its fullness in the RC Church because it has all the “elements.” However, The Church Of Christ subsists in other sects according to how many elements they possess. To have all the elements is best, but only to have some is good too."Delete
All of the four individuals wrote on the the phrase itself, which, I imagine, you haven't read any of their works. Go figure... a self-appointed pope.
No. I just don’t need four doctors—none approved theologians from pre-Vatican II—to tell me that black means white and vice-versa. If pre-and post-V2 are the same Church please cite ONE pre-V2 approved theologian or canonist or Magisterial document which teaches heretical sects are a “means of salvation.” Your 4 doctors need theological malpractice insurance.Delete
Do 4 self-appointed theologians know better than St. Bellarmine or St. Thomas Aquinas?Delete
Well they are qua heretical sects but obviously the dissident eastern churches have valid orders and confess enough of the faith for justification so someone who did not culpably adhere to their errors and received the sacrament from them would do so as means of salvation. That does not seem problematic to me.Delete
Valid orders do nothing apart from the Church to effectuate salvation. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. If anyone is saved coming from the Eastern Schismatics, it is in spite of their seeming membership. God could enlighten the soul and infuse faith and sanctifying grace (BOD) before the moment of death so they die within the Church.
Pope Pius XI taught, “In this one Church Of Christ no man CAN BE OR REMAIN who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (See Mortalium Annos # 11).
There is no salvation in false sects. Period. People may be saved in a miraculous way in spite of their putative membership, by a miraculous grace of God. False sects have nothing conducive to salvation.
Eastern Catholics are now receivingDelete
"Episcopal Consecration" from so called
"Novus Ordo Bishops."
Anyone who is validly baptised is a Catholic unless and until they culpably severe themselves from the Church.Delete
Brief Singulari nobis to Cardinal Henry, Duke of York, 9th February 1749
§12. … When a heretic baptizes someone, provided he uses the legitimate form and matter,… the latter is marked with the baptismal character….
§13. Next, it was also found that someone who has received valid baptism from a heretic is made a member of the Catholic Church by virtue of that [baptism]; for the personal error of the one baptizing cannot deprive him of his happiness, provided the baptizer provides the sacrament in the faith of the true Church and observes her provisions in what relates to the validity of baptism. Suarez affirms this admirably in his Fidei catholicae defensio contra errores sectae Anglicanae, book 1, chapter 24, where he proves that the person baptized becomes a member of the Catholic Church, also adding this, that if the heretic, as often happens, christens an infant unable to make an act of faith, this is no obstacle to his receiving the habit of faith at baptism.
§14. Lastly, we have established that, if they reach the age at which they can distinguish right from wrong for themselves and then adhere to the errors of the one who baptized them, persons who were baptized by heretics are rejected from the unity of the Church and are deprived of all those benefits that those remaining in the unity of the Church enjoy, but they are not freed from her authority and laws, as Gonzales wisely explains in the section ‘Sicut’, no. 12, concerning heretics.
§15. We see this in the case of fugitives and traitors whom the civil laws completely exclude from the privileges of faithful subjects. Similarly, the laws of the Church not grant clerical privileges to those clerics who disobey the commandments of the sacred canons. But nobody things that traitors or clerics who violate the sacred canons are not subject to the authority of their princes or prelates.
§16. These example too, unless we are mistaken, are relevant to the question; for just like them, so too heretics are subject to the Church and are bound by the ecclesiastical laws.
You prove my point. I readily admit that children validly baptized in false sects are Catholic because Baptism is for entrance into the True Church. Baptism only makes Catholics. However, when the baby reaches the age of reason—about age 7–and is instructed in the sect, they cease to be Catholic.
As in your cited # 14 “... if they reach the age at which they can distinguish right from wrong for themselves and then adhere to the errors of the one who baptized them, persons who were baptized by heretics are rejected from the unity of the Church and are deprived of all those benefits that those remaining in the unity of the Church enjoy,”
"However, when the baby reaches the age of reason—about age 7–and is instructed in the sect, they cease to be Catholic."Delete
Here, you display your ignorance. The age which canon law presumed culpability was 14 not 7. Simply because it is presumed that one is culpable doens't make one so.
The point I'm making is that these heretical sects can provide a path for supernatural faith. The only two doctrines that are required to believed as an absolute necessity of means are the Trinity and Incantation. As long as the adherents of these false sects remain inculpably ignorant, God can bring them to salvation without them being formal members of the church.Delete
@anon5:29 and 5:39Delete
According to canonist Woywood, "When fully seven years of age, the law presumes that the child has sufficient use of reason to be responsible" (Canon 88). "Unbaptized persons are not held to laws which are purely Church laws, nor baptized persons who have not a sufficient use of reason, nor children under seven years of age though they may have sufficient knowledge and judgement, unless the law does in some instances declare the latter to be held to its observance [Canon 12]. The word 'purely' is to be emphasized in this Canon, because laws which are an explanation or applicationof the natural law or Divine positive law bind every human being as soon as there is sufficient understanding of the law and consequent responsibility, apart from any definite age." (See "The New Canon Law" , pg. 17; and pgs. 3-4). So much for my "ignorance."
Any person with use of reason who is instructed in the sect ceases to be Catholic. Heretical sects make a pathway to Hell. While the more probable opinion of the theologians and canonists is that the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are to be believed as a necessity of means, this does not make the other truths either "optional" nor does it excuse from Church membership.
While God can (and does) save those who APPEAR to be outside Her confines, one MUST belong to the Church for salvation. The recipient of BOD dies within the CHURCH, not as a member of a false sect. The go to Heaven in spite of the false sect. Vatican II claims that the sects--as corporate bodies--are a "means of salvation." Pure heresy.
How about invalidly baptized Protestants? They can get enlightened by the Bible, and be saved, but not as easy as the Eastern Schismatics because they have "fewer elements" of the Church of Christ. Members of the Church of Satan will learn of the battle between good and evil and turn to God. So Satanism can be a "means of salvation." Let's kiss a Koran and a Satanic Bible as they contain some "rays of truth"!
Welcome to the pure heresy that is the Vatican II sect.
Your argument is circular the question at issue is whether the individuals in question are members of the church not whether one needs to be aggregated to the Church for salvation.Delete
The individuals in question are not Catholic because of "elements of sanctification" exist in the false sect as Robber Council Vatican II taught. The false sect leads them to Hell. If they are saved, it is because of the miraculous grace of God bringing them into the One True Church, and IN SPITE OF any seeming adherence to a false sect.
Bottom line: They are not members of the Church due to a false sect. If they are members of the Church it is in spite of such outward appearance of membership in a false sect. No sect helps anyone to salvation.
Well qua false sect it is obviously bad and adherence to it is incompatible with salvation but insofar as it masquerades as the Church and teaches true doctrines and possesses valid orders and its material adherents are deceived in good faith it can be an instrument of salvation (just like many evils) per accidens.Delete
It can in no way be an instrument of salvation. Replace the words “false sect” with “Satanism” (some of whom have defrocked priests with valid orders) and you see the absurdity.Delete
But being arrested and tortured by Elizabeth I’s government can be an instrument of salvation. Reading a book by a pagan Neo-Platonist can be an instrument of salvation. A false minister of valid infant baptism in some sect is obviously an instrument of salvation not qua false minister but qua valid minister of the sacrament. I don’t see why you can’t make the distinction.Delete
Furthermore, the Pr-Concilliar Roman Ritual contained the provision for conditional absolution: “By the authority of the Holy See which I exercise here, I release you from the bond of excommunication which you have (perhaps) incurred; and I restore you to communion and union with the faithful, as well as to the holy sacraments of the Church; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
There is a LGBT friendly Novus Ordo Church in the City near where I live. Not too long ago this Novus Ordo Church was advertising an “interfaith service”. On the list of “interfaith” attendees was “Satanists” and “Wiccans”. I guess, according to the Novus Ordoites, Satanists and Wiccans are apart of their Sect.
I am trying to locate the link to the above and when I do I will publish it.
Doesn't surprise me one bit. Thank you for the information and trying to obtain the link!
I'm hoping you're not serious. "...being arrested and tortured by Elizabeth I’s government can be an instrument of salvation." No. It is dying with the Integral Catholic Faith in the state of sanctifying grace that saves you. Being tortured is merely the manner in which you died. How about slow death from a disease? Is the disease a "means of salvation" too? Yes, there was a conditional absolution. How does this make false sects a "means of salvation"? In your (weird) "distinction" ANYTHING could be a "means of salvation." Someone prays to Satan. There are demonic manifestations. The person, by the grace of God, is frightened, repents in Confession and dies. Ergo, praying to Satan is a "means of salvation."
To be clear something is a means of salvation, if and only if, it is positively willed by God to effectuate the same. You are saved BECAUSE of it and not IN SPITE OF IT. Is being tortured positively willed by God, and the torture is what saves you? NO. Ask Bergoglio and he WILL tell you that God wills false religions! Nothing more need be said.
Here is the link to the above post regarding the Novus Ordo and worshipping with Satanists. The “Coven of the Pale Moon Wolf” on the link is a group of Satanists and Witches. Also, listed on the link, is the “Living Water Catholic Community” which is a group of female “Priests”. Also, listed, is a Jewish congregation, “Chizuk Amuno Congregation”!!
Thank you for providing us with yet another reason why the Vatican II sect cannot be the True Catholic Church!
For you, what is a means of Salvation?Delete
I ask this because you need to be specific. Because if you are not specific, then breathing is a means of Salvation.Delete
When a false minister aware or culpably ignorant of his lack of apostolic mission validly baptises someone he sins but he is the instrument by which someone enters the Catholic Church. Do you deny this?Delete
I accept it in the same sense that if a Satan worshipper wants to validly baptize a child because it is better to lead a child of God into sin, yes, he was the instrument.
You completely overlooked what I wrote:
To be a “means of salvation” something must be POSITIVELY WILLED BY GOD. God wills the Catholic Church and the Sacraments. He does not will false sects and their false ministers.
Vatican II clearly was teaching that they are willed by God, as Bergoglio clearly stated just this month!
Anon 4:47, individuals in this sense are not means of salvation. What is meant by means of salvation is dogmas and doctrines of a church. It is the Catholic sacrament of Baptism that is a means of salvation. Not the heretics false doctrines. If the heretic validly baptizes a soul it is from a sacrament that owes its source to the Catholic Faith, not from the heretics false faith. The false faith offers nothing to anyones salvation. But like a broke clock they may be correct now and then.Delete
You are defining your terms so as to allow for no sense in which these statements can be orthodox but there is no reason to suppose these documents spoke in such an idiosyncratic way.Delete
Is anyone here aware that Fr. Salaverri wrote a commentary on Lumen Gentium? The great Fr. Salaverri was in union with the Pope until his death in 1979; yet sedevacantists love to cite him.Delete
The terms were defined by Ratzinger and his fellow Modernists. Check out my post of this week 2/25/19.
I’d love to see what Salaverri wrote. Remember that, just like Tertullian and Origen, you can cite them WHEN THEY WERE CATHOLIC NOT AFTER THEY FELL INTO HERESY. They ceased to be approved theologians.
"Remember that, just like Tertullian and Origen, you can cite them WHEN THEY WERE CATHOLIC NOT AFTER THEY FELL INTO HERESY. They ceased to be approved theologians."Delete
I read your post, nothing new to see.Delete
It’s about reality, not convenience. Would you cite to Tertullian when he wrote after he fell into heresy?
@anon5:30 the second?:
Doesn’t surprise me—-
“They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see...Psalm 135: 16
I don’t profess to know much as I am fairly new, but I do know that ANYONE who kisses the Koran and worships with Pagans is NOT Catholic, especially the so called “Pope”, John Paul II. JPII, like all the Vatican II “Popes”, are charlatans and fakes.ReplyDelete
Excellent...and as of reading this...faux francis has just lifted the sanctions against a communist priest that even wojolta thought too communistic since woyolta sanctioned him! Behold...illumined freemasonry has its own "pope"ReplyDelete
I get chills when I think about what might come after Bergoglio!
Personally, I am hoping for someone like Cupich or Marx. Let the world see the true Modernist V2 sect!Delete
It might go beyond anything we’ve seen—which as you say, might actually be a good thing to have all see V2 at its worst!
If the next fake conclave fake elects someone like Müller, then it will be back to business as usual and the Michael Matts and Steve Skojecs will put all this in the rearview mirror and go back to "resisting" their Pope here and there when they know best.Delete
Things are so bad that I have even heard Protestants ask “what has happened with the Catholic Church and this Pope”. I heard one famous radio show talk host say this very thing the other day. He then added “the Catholic Church is not supposed to change”. This was in reference to the abortion bill in NY. He thought he could “count on the Catholic Church” being very vocal against it and was surprised when they weren’t. The talk show host is Lutheran. I personally wonder if there will be a next “Pope”. Perhaps this is the end?Delete
You’re not the only one who has thought the end could be at hand. It may very well be the case. The Vatican II sect has become a complete joke, to the point where even organized opposition to abortion is fading.
I looked up Dr. Christian Washburn, as he was first on the list, and I stumbled onto this recent thesis which Dr. Washburn read in conjunction with others.
I'd appreciate your analysis or refutation (?) of Chapter 4 or indeed the entire thesis.
It's a long yet interesting read.
P.S. I'm not the previous anon. I'm a sedevacantist.
I’ll respond Monday.
Tomorrow; the "summit" which supposedly will work against the predator novus ordo priests will start. It is said that celibacy causes those men to become predators. However, it would be wrongfully naive to think that the end of celibacy will be the end of abuses: many predators would marry and pretend to be perfect husbands while monsters in the inside, just as modernists pretend to be perfectly orthodox but heretical on the inside.ReplyDelete
In the other hand, we need a seriously taken policial investigation against the novus ordo sect; just because the world likes Frank´s politically correct agenda that does not means gay mafia has the right to remain hidden.
However, if Francis uses the summit to promote his own modernist agenda, and he decides to allow married novus ordo priests, would that be heretical? If he does so, it would add another reason why he can not be the Pope of the Catholic Church. The novus ordo apologist would have a hard time explaining this act of Frank!!!
For Greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe
I agree with you that the Vatican II sect is spiraling out of control. However, allowing married men to become priests as was done in the Eastern Rites prior to V2. Although I agree that the discipline of celibacy in the Latin Rite since the 12th century is superior, adopting the practice of the Eastern Rites is not heretical.
“The least serious sins are sins of the flesh” stated Frankie the fake about a week ago. Could it be a coincidence that he came out with that lie just before the “Abuse Summit”? I think not!!Delete
I never thought of that angle! You’re right!
Great point JoAnn.Delete
Speaking of Francis saying that the least serious sins are those of the flesh, here is what St. Alphonsus Liguori says in his Sunday Sermons book in the chapter on Impurity: "Can you, who say that the vice of impurity is but a small evil can you, I ask, deny that it is a
mortal sin? If you deny it, you are a heretic." link here https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/pdf/liguori-sermons-for-sundays-of-the-year.pdf
So for those of you who still think Francis is "pope" we have a doctor of the Church flat out say his statement is heretical. Just wanted to throw that out there.
God Bless JoAnn
Anon @1:01 - St. Alphonsus Liguori is one of my very favorites!! Frankie the fake is so outwardly heretical and becoming more so all the time, I can’t fathom how those who think he is “Pope” can keep making excuses for him. There has to come a time, soon I hope, that the more excuses they make for Frankie the more outlandish and preposterous they seem for doing so.Delete
1: Thank you for your response. There is now much misinformation of what is heretical or not.ReplyDelete
2: The world disregarded the Church that showed her authority as "intolerant". Now they have the church that not only does not show authority but shows phony stupidity (sinodality) when it tries to solve a problem that has damaged many children, seminarians, youths and people from around the world.
3: The novus ordo employed a month in their "youth sinod", but only 4 days in the "summit"
4: The world asked the novus ordo to have less rigid sexual morality, and to impose this on conservatives. Now just look what you have.
For Greater Glory of God,
Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.
"good things realized by genocide and abortion."ReplyDelete
Off topic topics:
Have you done posts about religious liberty (for false religions, that is...)?
If going to an "una cum fransisco" mass (sspx or resistance) is ok when there is no sv option, why is it not ok to go even if there IS an SV option?
Is there something actually wrong with the mass? Or is it just the sermon, or the scandal?
I have done a short post when I first started this blog, but another such post is really in order. See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2010/06/religious-liberty-religious-tolerance.html
As to your "Una Cum" question:
It is not wrong per se to go to Una Cum when there is a sedevacantist option. Since we know that there is no pope, it is in alignment with our beliefs and those not strong in the faith (or knowledgeable) might be unduly influenced by those who attend, or by the sermons to think the Vatican II sect is not off-limits. That's putting yourself in danger unnecessarily. If you are both strong and knowledgeable in the Faith, you might actually want to influence those at the Una Cum to consider sedevacantism. (Be prepared when they ask you to leave and not come back).
Wojtyla was presented as the one who brought down the USSR. Good joke ! The USSR was on the verge of collapse and it would have happened sooner or later, even without the intervention of "Saint" JP the Great Apostate.ReplyDelete