The Vatican II sect is counterfeit Catholicism, with new doctrine, a new "mass," new "sacraments," a new Rosary with "Illuminati Mysteries," and a new Catechism. The sect is the opposite of the One True Church. While much has been written on the Novus Bogus "mass" and "sacraments," this post will focus on the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism was promulgated by Wotyla (John Paul the Great Apostate) on October 11, 1992, the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Robber Council. Wojtyla's "Apostolic Constitution," Fidei Depositum, by which the promulgation was effectuated, had this to say:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.
(See vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum.html--- Part IV; Emphasis mine).
Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teach the Catholic Faith, and is it a "sure norm for teaching the Faith"? This post will set forth the teaching of the One True Church and compare it to the CCC, letting the reader decide if it is really "a statement of the Church's faith."
False Sects and Salvation
CCC, section 819
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." (Emphasis mine).
Pope Leo XIII:
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6) (Satis Cognitum, para. #5;Emphasis mine).
Pope Gregory XVI:
Now, We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,” and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” (Mirari Vos, para. #13; Emphasis mine)
Pope Benedict XV:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). (Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, para. #24; Emphasis mine).
Who Belongs to the Catholic Church?
CCC, section 838
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."(Emphasis mine).
Pope Pius XII:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Mystici Corporis, para. #22; Emphasis mine).
Pope Leo XIII:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos). (Satis Cognitum, para. #9; Emphasis mine).
Is The Church "Wounded" and Lacking Unity Because of False Sects?
CCC, section 817
In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism- do not occur without human sin (Emphasis mine).
Pope Pius XI:
And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. (Mortalium Annos, para. #7; Emphasis mine).
Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, "On The Ecumenical Movement" 12/20/1949
However, one should not speak of this [heretics/schismatics returning to the One True Church] in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained. (Emphasis mine).
Is Religious Liberty Good?
CCC, section 2106
"Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it." (Emphasis mine).
Pope Pius IX--Syllabus of Errors
CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.
CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.
What are The Primary and Secondary Ends of Matrimony?
CCC, section 2201
The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses (listed first---Introibo)and to the procreation and education of children. (listed second---Introibo). The love of the spouses (first) and the begetting of children (second) create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities. (Words first and second in parenthesis mine--Emphasis mine).
1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1013, section 1:
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary [end] is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence. (Emphasis mine).
Pope Pius XI:
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. (Casti Conubii, para. #17; Emphasis mine).
This has been but a small sampling of what the CCC, "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith," has to say on some subjects, and what the Church taught from 33AD to 1958. They are in stark contradiction. Both cannot be true. I kept commentary to a minimum, and let you, my dear readers, draw your own conclusions from the information in this post.
Thanks for this great post ! The CCC (Catechism of the Conciliar Church) is a demonic book approved by a false pope who was a henchman of Satan. When I need to learn about the Catholic faith, I consult the Catechism of the Council of Trent or the Catechism of Saint Pius X and not the Catechism of "Saint" John Paul the Great Apostate. Unfortunately, the members of the V2 sect, who claim to be Catholic, feed their minds with this modernist trash.ReplyDelete
Both the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism of Saint Pius X, are excellent, CATHOLIC catechisms!
Awesome post and great summary.ReplyDelete
Here is what the CCC says in regards to the Death Penalty:
“2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.
Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,  and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."
The Catechism of the Council of Trent says otherwise:
“Execution Of Criminals: Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment¬ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” Pg. 258
St. Alphonsus Ligouri said: It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence; God himself wishes malefactors to be punished.” (Instructions for the People on the Ten Commandments and on the Sacraments)
Also don't forget the PAN god creature on the front of the 1992 Catechism. It just reveals how sick the new religion is when it has that on there.
Good point, Lee. The V2 sect is another Church, that is clear. Wojtyla even admitted that "the Church" had succeeded, at Vatican II, in redefining its own nature. Is it not a clear admission that we are dealing with two different Churches with different worship, rites, laws and sacraments ?Delete
You are correct about capital punishment. The CCC teaches that it is wrong in principle. That is heresy.
“Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens” – sure, more effective systems like let violent felons out quickly, or not prosecute them at all? Yes, the due protection of citizens is therefore most certainly ensured.
I forgot about you mentioning Pan before. I looked it up – has there been any argument put forth that this is not somehow Pan? I don’t know how one gets around that panflute. Seems crazy. They do seem to enjoy putting their hidden marks on things.
I'm not sure if there is a defense of Pan but it certainly is Pan on the front of the book. If I find out anything more, I'll let you know.
Clearly there are contradictions here. In the examples you provided from the catechism you site from Pope Gregory XVI - Pius XII (7 popes) VS Popes John XXIII - Francis? (6 popes). Who's to say which grouping is correct? Sedevacantism tries to explain these contradictions, but it fails to do so satisfactorily IMO. The only thing that makes sense is that the Catholic Church contradicted itself.ReplyDelete
If John XXIII-Francis I is correct then truth can be changed. If Popes Gregory XVI- Pope Pius XII is correct than truth stays the same. The popes are the guardians of the deposit of Faith and as defined by Church at Vatican I they are unimpaired by any error.
Sedevacantism is the answer because either truth can change in the Church through its popes or it cannot change and become a new truth. The new religion is a man made religion which ironically focuses on man if you read the new catechisms, code of law, and Vatican II. Therefore the Church cannot contradict itself because true popes cannot contradict 2000 years of truth. The Holy Ghost guides the Church and to say that the Catholic Church contradicts itself would a heresy and a blasphemy because it is to say the Holy Ghost contradicts Himself.
Lee is correct. Moreover, the popes pre-Vatican II were teaching the same all the way back to the time of Christ! I was just taking a small sample of teachings from the 19th and 20th centuries.
Anon 5:59: 2 points.ReplyDelete
1. Not all sedes agree on J23, so it would be better to say Paul VI forward. All agree on that.
2. If these guys, P6 and those after we're not Popes, then their teaching doesn't count, since non-popes are just men like the rest of us, with no teaching authority, so the Church didn't contradict itself on doctrine.
John XXIII was proven to be a Freemason, which incurs excommunication. He also taught the heresy of religious liberty in his encyclical 'Pacem In Terris.'Delete
Mary Elaine Murray, how carefully did you look at the "proof" that J23 was a Freemason? What was it in specific that convinced you?Delete
Mary Elaine Murray,Delete
You are absolutely correct on Roncalli teaching heresy in "Pacem in Terris." I know there is controversy surrounding whether or not he was a Mason. (It wouldn't surprise me if he was a member of the Lodge). He was also censured and removed from his teaching position for teaching the occult theories of Rudolf Steiner and on suspicion of Modernism.
Please see my post: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html
Introibo, it's certainly possible that he may have been a Mason, but with the current "evidence" that exists, I don't find it convincing.Delete
Whether Roncalli was a Mason or not could be questioned. Whether he was a Catholic or not, is beyond question. He was a modernist.Delete
Tom and @anon8:07,Delete
I agree that the evidence of his Masonic membership has not convinced me. (Again, that's only my opinion. He MAY have been a Mason, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least). Tom, you are correct that whether Roncalli was a Mason or not, he was anything but Catholic!
God Bless you both,
One thing is certain, and that is that he shared Masonic ideas and the lodges mourned his death. And his successors share the same Masonic ideas, which shows how the V2 sect is infiltrated by enemies of the Church.Delete
Yes, the Masons did love him; and why wouldn't they when he (at the very least) shared their goals, if he was not an outright member himself.
1964 - present day would be a great idea. Not all traditionalists agree on J23 and some ask the question if P XII can make drastic changes to immemorial Liturgy then why can't J23? Will not respond to arguments it's a simple suggestion.Delete
God bless -Andrew
The reversal of the purposes of marriage, namely, the subordination of the procreation of children to "the good of the spouses" (according to the "new" catechism) is very interesting. If children are not the primary end then, it need hardly be said, anything and everything else can be called "marriage". As we see today.ReplyDelete
Yes and that is why we see the V2 sect endorsing sodomite unions.Delete
cairsahr__stjoseph and Simon,Delete
You are both so right!
Juxtaposing things like this are great. Have you ever written anything similar on how the current situation with the Church is different from the Protestant Reformation? SVs often get accused by Protestants of doing exactly what Luther did.ReplyDelete
That is an excellent idea! I think I will do such this year!
Just send your Novus Ordo friends this article: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/12/18/35-proofs-of-protestantism-in-the-vatican-2-religion/
Then ask them who the real Protestants are.
Thank you, Introibo. I will be panting at the well waiting.Delete
Your more traditional Protestants, i.e. Missouri Synod, claim that Luther rejected the Catholic Church ONLY after it went off the rails, thus he did what he had to do to preserve the ONE TRUE FAITH. It does sound awfully familiar, but I know it is false. I just don't know enough about the history and/or details to flush it all out, thus I come knocking at your door.
Pax et bonum +
I now have two promised post for this year; yours and one on courtship in today's evil world for Traditionalists.
Thank you for this post. I wonder of 90% of the CCC would be like this. It reminds me of some comparison charts I have on Vatican II (perhaps they are from Bp. Sanborn and MHT, or just shared by them). And that post on the Protestant Reformation and SV sounds great.
The CCC is basically the heretical principles of Vatican II with some "elements of truth" thrown in-between in order to better deceive. It's a wicked book.
Great post, thank you! I know a few people in particular who can benefit from it greatly. I'm extra looking forward to that post on courtship!
By the way, to any readers, does anyone know what happened to the person who would post under "The Catholic Archivist"? His blog had tons of pdfs of old books, it was a great aid, but now when I try to visit it, it says that the blog is private and can only be viewed if you've been given access. Just wondering if anyone has any info on this. What should've been the link to the blog is http://catholicarchivist.blogspot.com/ .
Catholic Archivist (or anyone who knows the status of his website), could you please respond here in the comments?
Thank you for taking the time to write such complete facts with proof! Any naysayers out there that like to hurl insults at SV’s are just naive because people like you, Kevin Davis, Mario Derksen…do research and can support your findings.ReplyDelete
Thank you, my friend! I always make sure to research and get my facts straight before I publish something. Mr. Davis and Mr. Derksen are both stellar! They both would make great attorneys with their research and writing skills.
Hello Introibo(and anybody else who wants to respond):ReplyDelete
1. What is the title and publication date of the oldest Catholic book that you have in your possession?
2. Please pray for Francis(Bergoglio); he has been taken to the hospital. Even if you disagree with somebody, it's good to pray for them.
3. If somebody has tried to convert to traditional Catholicism in the past, and had stopped because of a bad experience, and wants to try again, what are some suggestions that you have for them?
4. After Bishop Kurz died, did Father DePauw send his parishioners to other bishops for Confirmation?
5. Have you had traditional Confirmation?
6. Introibo, you said a while back that you could write a post about scrupulosity, but you're not sure when you might get to it. Do you think that you still might do it? And you could possibility give a number of examples, like:"This is the scrupulous thing to do, and this is the NON-scrupulous(correct) thing to do."
7. Do you think that receiving Communion every day(in the state of grace of course), if possible, is good? I have heard of people who out of scrupulosity only receive Communion infrequently. This could be a part of a post on scrupulosity.
8. Please keep in your thoughts and prayers people who want to pursue traditional Catholicism, but have struggles, including financial struggles to survive temporally.
Thank you. Anonymous
May God grant Bergoglio the grace to reject the heresies of Vatican II and convert to the true Catholic religion before coming to judgment.Delete
1. I have a couple of theological tomes dating to the 16th century. I'm not at home now to check my library, but I have some "oldies but goodies." Can't remember my oldest at this time.
2. We should pray for his conversion or Hell awaits him.
3. They should find a priest he trusts and, ideally, a Traditionalist layman who is strong in the Faith (hopefully at least 20 years as a grown man in the Church) to also guide him and prevent any pitfalls.
4. No. When the holy Bp. Kurz was sick and dying in his native West Germany, he called Abp. Lefebvre to perform Confirmations at the Ave Maria Chapel in his place. Despite the fact that Bp. Kurz fought alongside the archbishop at V2 (and helped him numerous times at the Robber Council), Abp. Lefebvre refused to help his friend and ally in his time of need. He said, he "couldn't risk" helping Fr. DePauw (without explaining further what he meant) even as Bp. Kurz risked much to help the Abp. You must remember that Bp. Kurz died in 1973. Abp. Thuc and Bp. Mendez were nowhere to be found. The other bishops were either heretics or cowards. Fr. DePauw detested the Abp. for his treatment of Bp. Kurz.
Fr. DePauw told me it was "another sad example that proves the old aphorism true; If you want to find gratitude, look it up in the dictionary."
6. I will try my best to get to it this year.
7. As Pope St. Pius X said, “Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven. There are others: innocence, but that is for little children; penance, but we are afraid of it; generous endurance of trials of life, but when they come we weep and ask to be delivered. The surest, easiest, shortest way is the Eucharist.”
8. Of course!
A great post. On another topic, has anyone ever heard of a Fr. Anthony Leonardo in the Chicago area? Like a number of independent, anti-Vatican II priests, there is not much information online about him. Thank you in advance to Introibo or whoever may have information.ReplyDelete
I have not heard of Fr. Anthony Leonardo. If any of my readers have any information on him, please send it here in the comments.
It might be worth asking on CathInfo in their anonymous post section. The people over there are able to dig up information on obscure traditional priests pretty well. If you do not want to make an account over there, I can ask on your behalf.Delete
Fr. Anthony Leonardo was ordained by Bp. Slupski in 2009. He has a small following in Chicago. He's very knowledgeable and calm mannered.Delete
The only things you need to be aware of is he is particular about having men and women sitting on the opposite sides of the Church and he rarely says Mass on time. He also has some parishioners that have eccentric ideas such as with raw food diets etc.
Sneedevacantist - that would be very kind of you to do that for me, thank you. It sounds like someday I should make an account there for this purpose.Delete
@anon9:27 - Thank you very much for that information. That is wonderful to hear! If those are the worst things that can be said, that is indeed good news.
You both have my sincere gratitude, and will be in my prayers.
Why do traditional Catholics say"Holy Ghost instead of"Holy Spirit", is it okay for traditional Catholics to say Holy Spirit, and is baptism valid if done"In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?
Thank you. Anonymous
The name "Holy Ghost" was how the Latin was translated in Old English. The Douay Rheims Bible uses that name, so pre-VII, Catholics in English speaking countries used that name. "Holy Spirit" is also a correct translation and is perfectly legitimate for a Traditionalist Catholic to use if he so wishes. Hence, a Baptism (done in English because of an emergency, I suppose) using the form "I baptize you In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" would be unquestionably valid.
Another great blog post. The Novus Ordo Catechism of John Paul II is a dangerous big explosive mix of Catholic doctrines, doctrines of modernism, and rants about "human dignity."
As for religious freedom, one thing puzzles me. The Novus Ordo Catechism states that:
"The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error" (section 2108).
If anyone had doubts about the meaning of the doctrine of religious liberty, Benedict XVI leaves no doubt. In his 2012 exhortation "Ecclesia in Medio Oriente," he explains:
“26. Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public […]
27. Religious tolerance exists in a number of countries, but it does not have much effect since it remains limited in its field of action. There is a need to move beyond tolerance to religious freedom”
After all, does a person have a moral right to practice a false religion or not?
Interestingly, Ratzinger while still prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine/Destruction of the Faith specified in “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life”:
“8. In this regard, it is helpful to recall a truth which today is often not perceived or formulated correctly in public opinion: the right to freedom of conscience and, in a special way, to religious freedom, taught in the Declaration Dignitatis humanae of the Second Vatican Council, is based on the ontological dignity of the human person and not on a non-existent equality among religions or cultural systems of human creation. Reflecting on this question, Paul VI taught that «in no way does the Council base this right to religious freedom on the fact that all religions and all teachings, including those that are erroneous, would have more or less equal value; it is based rather on the dignity of the human person, which demands that he not be subjected to external limitations which tend to constrain the conscience in its search for the true religion or in adhering to it». The teaching on freedom of conscience and on religious freedom does not therefore contradict the condemnation of indifferentism and religious relativism by Catholic doctrine; on the contrary, it is fully in accord with it”.
So, as you understand it, a person has the right to sin against God by practicing a false religion not because of the equality of religions but because of his great dignity? Fr. Piotr Dzierżak, a Polish former Novus Ordo priest and now SSPX, said that a professor at a modernist Novus Ordo seminary in Poland admitted to seminarians in a lecture that he himself does not understand religious freedom. Does anyone understand her?
Thank you for this blog post.
Now that Ratzinger has been called to Judgment, he will have to account for his work in destroying Catholicism.Delete
Glad my post of help!
When Wojtyla says his catechism is a sure norm for teaching the faith, he reminds me of the serpent that said to Eve, "No, you shall not die the death."ReplyDelete
Wojtyla was a liar, and followed the Father of Lies.