Father Hesse

[Ark]

Peace be with you PhuturePriest,

Fr. Hesse might be wrong but he is consistent. You didn't post the time frame for the quotes but I take it from what you reproduce, he believed the FSSP left the Church when they signed on to the v2 documents.

[PhuturePriest]

Peace be with you PhuturePriest,

Fr. Hesse might be wrong but he is consistent. You didn't post the time frame for the quotes but I take it from what you reproduce, he believed the FSSP left the Church when they signed on to the v2 documents.

 

He believed any person who affirms Vatican II is a formal heretic.

[Ark]

Is that what was actually said or what you infer? If so I don't mean to be annoying but do you have the exact reference to refer to?

[PhuturePriest]

Is that what was actually said or what you infer? If so I don't mean to be annoying but do you have the exact reference to refer to?

 

It's exactly what he said. If you click the links I give, you will be sent to the exact moments he says them.

[Ark]

I unfortunately could not message Ark since (s)he has less than 100 messages, and wanting to avoid further hijacking Basilisa's thread, I decided to simply make my own.

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=18m30s

At this moment in the video, Father Hesse says thus: "You cannot become a Catholic Priest if you accept Vatican II... You cannot be a Catholic Priest if you approve the Novus Ordo, I proved this yesterday."

He then goes on to say that had Levebre not ordained those four Bishops so they could continue to ordain men who do not accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, the Church would have ended. This clearly implies all ordinations of men who do not hold such views are invalid.

Peace be with you PhuturePriest,

Pardon the delay! Let me first say that your flow of logic here is unsound. Just because Fr. Hesse said that you cannot be a Catholic Priest and accept Vatican II, it does not mean the sacrament of ordination is invalid. Consider the Russian orthodox who are both schismatic and heretical, yet their sacraments (including ordination) are valid. Validity of sacrament and Catholicity are two separate things.

Fr. Hesse believed the documents of Vatican II contained heretical and blasphemous statements. Therefore, anyone who accepted them embraced those errors and separated himself from the truth.

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=32m12s

 

I must apologize at this point, because I was wrong. I claimed that Father Hesse says any priests who affirm Vatican II, celebrate the Novus Ordo (Or simply acknowledge it as a real Rite of the Mass), and do not hold that all encyclicals since Vatican II are heretical, are formal heretics. I was wrong: He says they are not even Catholics. To give an exact written quote of everything he says at this point:

"The Fraternity of Saint Peter officially agrees with Vatican II, and officially agrees with the present Pope's (Pope John Paul II) encyclicals, so they (FSSP) are not Catholic -- officially, objectively. They are formally not Catholics -- formally... formally, they are not Catholics. Formally, they are in heresy because they sign and affirm -- officially, formally, objectively, heresy -- which means Vatican II."

 

This implies all Catholics who affirm Vatican II are formal, objective heretics, and are in fact not even Catholic.

Fr. Hesse said that by formally accepting Vatican II they objectively fell into heresy because again he believes there are heretical statements in the Vatican II documents. 

Going to skip to your fundamental point:

If you read nothing else, read this, as this is where it gets vitally important, for here is where it gets blatantly schismatic and heretical:

 

http://youtu.be/HqwlKEEtiwU?t=39m11s

"And here's another thing: When you go to communion with the SSPX you definitely know that the little Hosts distributed to you were consecrated by one of the priests from the SSPX was in the Old Mass. With the indult Mass, you might get the Host that some liberal hippie 1968 generation Priest, in an invalid celebration, attempted to Consecrate. So they're only cookies -- crackers. With the Fraternity of Saint Peter you can go to communion without hesitation, because if it's their own chapel, if they are not just borrowing the chapel, then it's only them who celebrate there, so the Sacrament is valid. Now as far as the issue of validity is concerned, I highly recommend you read both of Father (I can't make out the name here) 's books, who explains in painful detail and very precisely, and holding all the necessary authority, why the New Mass in the English language is with the highest probability invalid -- "invalid" means the Sacrament is not taking place. It's just like going to the Episcopalian Church except the Rite of the Episcopalians is a lot nicer."
 

The video is not quite over, but there is quite simply nothing more that needs to be said. He claims I and everyone who affirms Vatican II, the Pope's encyclicals, and the Novus Ordo, are formal heretics and not even Catholic. He claims the New Mass doesn't even have a valid Sacrament. Father Hesse was, at best, a material heretic and schismatic, and at worst, a formal one. He was intelligent, pious, and fiercely passionate about the Church -- but he was also misguided, wrong, and led many people into schism. He was the antithesis of everything the traditionalist movement should strive for, and it is people like him who make so many people mistakenly believe that all traditionalists are simply closeted schismatics.

​My friend, you need to be precise with your language. Fr. Hesse did not say the New Mass does not have a valid sacrament, rather he said the New Mass *in* *English* is *probably* not valid. That is very different from what you just said. Rather, Fr. Hesse has said that in Latin the Novus Ordo does have a valid sacrament but the problem is that mistranslations, such as the one of pro multis, probably affects the sacrament, and that is why he referred to the English form of the New Mass. 

Here is a rather frightening article written by a Priest who celebrates the new mass:

Is Christ "Really" Among Us Today?
by Regis Scanlon

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/REALLY.TXT

The real question is whether Fr. Hesse was wrong. Is every statement in the Vatican II documents free of error? Does the mistranslation of pro multis have no affect on consecration? It's easy to brush this aside, but to actually tackle them is another matter.

[Gladius]

In the video, Father Hesse says, I do not say that 99.9 percent of the churches don't have the Blessed Sacrament in their Tabernacles.  I only repeat what Pope Innocent III says, Catholics are not allowed to take chances with the Sacraments.  That is the official doctrine of the Church.  If you take chances with the Sacraments, then you are in sin.  If there is a question of validity, stay away from it.  BTW, the books Father Hesse recommends are written by Father Paul Trinchard.

[Gladius]

On 2/23/2015, 1:53:30, Ark said:

Peace be with you PhuturePriest,

Fr. Hesse might be wrong but he is consistent. You didn't post the time frame for the quotes but I take it from what you reproduce, he believed the FSSP left the Church when they signed on to the v2 documents.

This is the list Father Hesse use to level his claims about VII:

A Summary of Fr. Hesse’s talk on the documents of Vatican II

 

Fr. Hesse qualifications:  Fr. Hesse was appointed theologian by the Holy Father, John Paul II.  He has his Doctorate from the Pontifical University in Rome in theology and canon law.  Fr. Hesse spent 15 years in Rome and was the secretary for Cardinal Stickler for 2 years.

 

Quotations regarding the unchangeability of the Sacraments:

 

Canon 13, 7th Session of the Council of Trent says:  “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administrations of the sacraments, may be condemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by any pastor of the churches whomsoever into new ones; let him be anathema.”  Some translations in English mistranslate as “…or be changed by any pastor of the churches into new ones…”.  The word ‘whomsoever’ includes the Pope himself who is the Prime Minister (pastor).  Latin:  per quem cumque Ecclesiarum Pastorum

The Council of Trent does not need to tell me that any pastor cannot change the rites.

 

Pope Innocent III said that if any future Pope tries to change the sacraments, he must not be followed.

At Council of Florence Pope Eugene IV had as his theologian Cardinal Torquemada who wrote a book titled “Summa Ecclesia”, which says that if a Pope tries to change the sacraments he puts himself outside the Church.  For this work Pope Eugene IV gave him the title “Defender of the Faith”.

Pope St. Pius V in response to the Council of Trent’s dogmatic definitions wrote his bull Quo Primum.  This bull clearly states that the Roman rite and those rites greater than 200 years old, cannot be changed and that any priest cannot be forced to say any other rite.  All Popes after this time up to and including Pope John XXIII interpreted Quo Primum as binding on them. (See Appendix A).

 

Now many Catholics who are “conservative” acknowledge these documents and agree that the old rites should be preserved but defend Vatican II and say that it never intended to change the rites and these are just abuses.  Fr. Hesse will show that the second Vatican council did intend to change the rites and do have heresy in them.   Therefore Vatican II must be rejected in total, not in each line as they do occasionally quote old Councils.

 

Due to many misunderstandings Fr. Hesse gives many theological definitions to assist the average lay person to understand the issues better before beginning a review of the Vatican II documents.

 

Definitions –

 

Objective vs Subjective: 

 

Objective means something concerns the thing or object.  Subjective means something concerns the person.  When I make an objective judgement I judge facts or things or actions.  When I make a subjective judgement I judge a person (which I do not want to do).  Objective concerns the thing itself.  Subjective means what something means to me.  Pope Eugene IV in the Council of Florence (1441) pronounced that no one who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if he thinks he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved.  The Pope makes an objective judgement.  He does not say that all Protestants are in Hell.  Objectively speaking they have no chance to enter heaven.  Subjectively we do not know what the Lord will do with them. Two rules of the church:  The church does not judge the dead.  (De Mortuis Ecclesia non judica.) The church does not judge internal things (De internis Ecclesia non judica.).

 

Material vs. Formal: 

 

Material means that something is there i.e. It exists.  Formal means it is declared as such.  If  I say John Paul II is a material  heretic, that means, he has all the matter of a heretic. It can be proven, that many of his writings, or things that he said, are heretical.  I would not dare to say he is a heretic (formal) for no one can judge the Pope and no one can judge his intentions or conscience.  I see heresy, it is there (material), but one cannot say it is formal heresy.  For instance, the Pope will say “according to tradition…”  and then he proceeds to say something wrong.  An example of formal heresy would be if he should say something like “Contrary to what the Council of Trent says, I tell you…” some heresy.

 

Valid vs. Licit:

 

Valid means it takes place, it happens.  Licit means that it is allowed or legal.  For instance the Roman Catholic church has always recognized the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has all seven sacraments, valid but not licit since they are heretics and schismatics.  Heretic because they say the Pope is not infallible and schismatic because they say the Pope does not have the primacy.

 

Act and Potency:  (entire philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas is based on this distinction).

 

Any thing that is can be in two ways, Actually or Potentially.  The new philosophy / theology does not use these distinctions.  When John Paul II says “all people are saved” is he correct?  If he means potentially, then he is correct.  If he means actually then he is in error.  Our Lord says many go to the wide and broad way to hell.  The Pope does not distinguish between act and potency.

 

Heresy, Schism, Error, Disobedience:

 

Schism means I separate myself from the Church, not denying anything of the faith itself but simply denying church authority.  If I tell you not to do something that the Pope said was wrong then I just tell you what Pope Innocent III and Pope Pius IX said.  If I tell you that you should not regard anything this Pope says then I would be leading you into schism.  Do not deny the power of the Pope’s authority!  Just as President Clinton is president and we cannot deny this but if he tells me to disregard the 10 commandments I tell him no. This is not denying his authority, it is simply not obeying an unjust command since I do not reject his power to give commands, just the command itself.  This is our present relationship to the Pope.

 

Heresy means to know but deny or doubt a defined doctrine of the Church.

 

Error means you may have a mistaken understanding of what the church teaches.  (i.e. you are erroneous).   If there is something the Pope should know then I talk about heresy.  If there is something he clearly misunderstood then I have to talk about error, always judging objectively and materially.

Disobedience has nothing to do with Schism, Heresy or Error.   When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops he at first glance appeared to be disobedient.  (He was not disobedient because it was an unjust command he did not follow and it was certainly not against the will of Christ or the Church).  In no way can one say he was in schism because he never denied the Popes right to give a command, he simply said I cannot follow this one command because it is unjust.  This is explained in another lecture given by Fr. Hesse.

 

You must understand these distinctions otherwise you will not understand what I am about to say.  Next we must go over what is know as Theological Positions (Thelochi Theologica).  These are finer distinctions than heresy and error as well as Catholic truths.

 

Catholic Truth:

 

De fide divina:  By divine faith.  That is it must be believed.  These are such things as Canons of Council of Trent, Vatican I, etc. declare a dogma.

 

De fide Catolica: The church has always believed it.  It is part of the faith (e.g. the creed).

 

De fide de finita:  The church has always believed it but once in history a Pope has made a definition. (e.g. 1854 – Pope Pius IX proclaimed dogma of Immaculate Conception-this was always believed but was now defined on exactly what this was supposed to mean.

 

Fide Proxima:  Close to the faith.  It is not a dogma but the church has always believed it and it could be a dogma at any time.  (e.g.  Mary as Co-Redemptrix:  Our Lady had first role in helping Our Lord in redemption, although only Jesus saves)  This is a Sententia Fide Proxima, that is you may not deny it without fear of punishment from God.

 

Sententia Certa:  It is not actually of the faith but we are very sure about it.

 

Sententia Communis:  We may not be very sure about it but everyone says so, not in sense of democracy but in sense of historical accordance.  Most of saints, theologians, Popes throughout centuries agreed on it.

 

Sententia Probabalis:  It is probable.  We don’t know exactly.  (e.g. if a person in mortal sin dies and makes a perfect act of contrition the church teaches most probably he will be saved).

 

Ecclesiastical Centures:

 

Heretical:  directly denies dogma of the faith.

Heresy Proxima:  does not literally deny a dogma but it coming pretty close to it.

Erroneous:  It is not denying a dogma but just make a mistake about it.

Arrorea Proxima:  It is not wrong in itself but by circumstances.

Temeraria:  It is daring to say so.  How dare you say it. It is Male Sonans (it does not sound good).  It is offensive to pious ears. (Piario Aurreum Offensiva).  It is scandalous when done in public.

 

Before starting a detailed examination of some of the scandalous documents of Vatican II, let me quote the Gospel.

 

“Who so shall offend one of these little ones that follow me it were better for him if a mill stone was hanged about his neck and he was drowned in the depths of the sea”.

 

Some ask why is Fr. Hesse not nice and kind.  “Think not that I have come to send peace on earth.  I have come not to send peace but a sword.”

Some say this Fr. Hesse is a rigorist.  Let me quote another rigorist.  “For verily I say unto you not one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” and “I am the way, the truth and the life”.

 

“But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”.

 

First Constitution of Vatican II:  Sacrosanctuum Concillium 12/4/63

 

In paragraph 1 it states “It is the goal of this most sacred Council…to make more responsive the requirements of our times those Church observances which are open to adaptation; to nurture whatever can contribute to the unity of all who believe in Christ”.  This notion is erroneous and has been condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (On Ecumenism).  He condemns the false “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 today exist…”  “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love…altogether forbade any discourse with those who profess a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching”;  “for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one, true Church of Christ”.  When we make a profession of faith we say “una, sancta, Catolica, Apostolica Ecclesia”  (one, holy Catholic  & Apostolic Church).  The Church is always in union with itself.  Protestants are outside the Church.  The Russian Orthodox Church is heretical and schismatic and are outside the Church, and is not our sister church as John Paul II says.  We must not change liturgy to achieve union…we have this union!

 

Paragraph 4 says “Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal authority and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and foster them in every way.  The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be carefully and thoroughly revised in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.”  This notion of adapting the liturgy has been condemned by Pius VI in Auctorum Fide as “scandalous, rash and offensive to pious ears”.  Vatican II is contradicting itself here.

 

Paragraph 7, although not heretical is confusing.  It talks about Christ being present in the sacraments but then quotes Mt 18:20 “where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst of them”.  In the old Councils a distinction would be made that Mt18 is a spiritual presence and at the Mass Christ is really and truly present on the altar (body, blood, soul and divinity).  The 2^nd Vatican Council does not make these distinctions. 

 

Paragraph 14 says “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else”.  This is not heresy but is conducive into the heresy which is promoted nowadays that a priest cannot celebrate Mass alone.  This has been explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent. (Session XIII, Canon X).  The most important thing according to defined dogma is to keep the tradition of Mass.

 

Paragraph 21 says “restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify.  Christian people as far as possible should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”  What does this mean?  Did not the Christians take part in the old mass?  The oldest liturgical rule is “lex orandi, lex credendi”  i.e. The law of what has to be prayed constitutes the law of what has to be believed.  The Mass is not supposed to be understood by the Village idiot or even the people.  The Mass is supposed to represent the entire faith of the Church.  As a theologian studying since 1974, I still do not understand all the Mass liturgy.  To make a Mass that is understood by the Village idiot requires a totally imbecile rite.  The liturgy is supposed to explain the faith to me.  Liturgy is a sign of the specific grace received “ex operae operatio”.  In old days, when most were illiterate how come they knew the faith?   Either you give up the highest principle of liturgy or you make an imbecile rite.  Today the Mass is understood less than ever and there is confusion everywhere.

 

Paragraph 22:1  “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and as laws may determine on the Bishop.

 

Paragraph 22:2  “In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishop’s conferences, legitimately established with competent and given territories.

 

So far it means nothing else but that some things will be decided not by the Holy See, but by the Bishop’s Conferences. But then throughout the rest of the document they only quote number 22:2 (Dispite 22:1).  When I’m through with this document you will see what 22:2 really means, you will see the real context of 22:2.

 

Paragraph 24 wants to dump the beautiful prayers of the Church for sacred scripture…why?  Because for the Protestants there is no tradition, only sola scriptura.  Now we have endless quotes from sacred scripture that no one understands anyway. 

 

Paragraph 25:  “The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; from various parts of the world, experts are to be employed and bishops are to be consulted.”  Do you ‘conservatives’ still really believe that Vatican II never meant to change the mass?  They got this very quickly…4 years after Council.

 

When Pius VI condemned the pseudo Council of Pystoya in Auctorum Fide, he said it was the usual tactic of the liberal to use ambiguous terminology.  When you accuse of them of there error they say, I did not say that, but they act according to it.  Pius VI goes on to say the purpose of a Council to clarify.  Vatican II certainly did not do that.  Fr. Schillebex said that we will use ambiguous terms and after the council we will know how to interpret them.

 

Paragraph 30:  “By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons and songs as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes.”  This is a Protestant and Pentecostal request.  The priest celebrates Mass.  The people assist, they do not celebrate the liturgy.  Now we have hula masses, polka masses, clown masses, etc.

 

Paragraph 32:  “no special honors are to be paid by any private person or classes of persons”.  We are now all equal.  What about the Count who entirely out of his own pocket builds the church?  Should he not have his proper place up front?

 

Paragraph 33:  “the prayers addressed to God by the priest, who presides of the assembly in the person of Christ, are said in the name of the entire holy people as well as that of all present.”  They have changed many of the prayers in the new liturgy from I to We.  This is an error.  For instance at the offertory the priest says “I offer you up this immaculate host”.  As he speaks “en persona Christi” he cannot be speaking in the name of the people.  It is Christ who offers not We.

 

Paragraph 35.1:  “In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture…”  Catering to the Protestants again.  As if we understood all the reading in the Roman missal.  The old mass produced a lot saints, the new mass has not produced one yet.

 

Paragraph 36:1  “use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”

Paragraph 36:2  “but since the use of the vulgar tongue…may be frequently be of great advantage …regulations on this matter laid down in subsequent chapters.”

Paragraph 36:3 refers to article 22:2

Note how the modernists speak with forked tongue:  they say Latin must be preserved but you can use the vernacular.

 

Paragraph 37 promotes the use of inculturation in the liturgy.

 

Paragraph 40:  “In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation  of the liturgy is needed…”  40.1 refers to 22:2.  This is why we get all these crazy liturgies.

 

Paragraph 43 says the reform is a movement of the Holy Spirit.  That is probably why the whole world is converted and many have decided they don’t need to go to church anymore.  This the liturgy of a new religion, not the Catholic religion.

 

Paragraph 44:  Article 22:2 referenced.  Use of experts.  Pius XII condemns changes in Mediator Dei.  “promotes necessary experiments”.  When Cardinal Koenig was asked how it was possible that they were replacing the reading of St. Paul with communist authors, his only reply was “that’s an interesting liturgical experiment”. 

 

Paragraph 50:  “…rites are to be simplified…elements…duplicated or added with little advantage are to be discarded”  Simplifying rites has been condemned by Pius VI in Auctorum Fide.  Pope binds his successors in matters of faith.  Vatican I says the Pope must guard and explain the faith and may not change them.

 

Paragraph 54 says that the faithful should be able to use Latin but then refers to Articles 36 and 40 which say to use the vernacular and both of these articles refer to 22:2.

 

Paragraph 55 references Council of Trent when it says “communion under both kinds may be granted when bishops think fit”  whereas the Council of Trent did not want distribution under both species because of risk to Eucharist.

 

Paragraph 57 allows for concelebrations.  Canon 902 says no priest may be forced to concelebrate yet priests are forced to frequently today.

 

Paragraph 58 new concelebration rite.  Do you ‘conservatives’ still say Vatican II did not want concelebration?

 

Paragraph 62 asks for simplifying rite.

 

Paragraph 68 calls for a shorter rite in case of emergency.  This is silly…in case of emergency you always said the old rite “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”.  How much shorter can you get?

 

Paragraph 71:  “The rite of confirmation is to be revised…”

 

Paragraph 72:  “rites and formulas of Penance are to be revised…”

 

Paragraph 76:  “ordination rites are to be revised…”

 

Paragraph 77:  “marriage rites are to be revised…”

 

All the sacraments are new rites and this has been condemned by the Church.  Those who use and approve of the new rites are materially in schism with the Church.

 

Paragraph 79:  “the sacraments are to be revised…”  “the requirements of our times have to be weighed”  This has be condemned by Pius IX, Pius XII, & Pius VI.

 

Paragraph 91:  “psalms to be distributed over longer than one week”.  Oldest rule of the breviary is to say the 150 Psalms in one week.   A priest must give praise to God seven times a day.  The liturgical reformers took out 3 psalms which condemn the heretics to hell.  This is scandalous as it goes against a tradition of nearly 2000 years.

 

Paragraph 92:  “lives of saints to be in accord with history”  I trust tradition handed down of martyrologies.

 

Paragraph 93:  “hymns restored….removed of mythology”  Scandalous because it tells us we have been fed a load of you know what for almost 2000 years.

 

Paragraph 112:  “Church approves of all forms of true art, and admits them into Divine worship”  You can see how this was interpreted by all the ugly new churches”

 

Paragraph 119: “adapt liturgy to native genius”  inculturation again…

 

Paragraph 122:  admits different forms of art.  See how the bishops have interpreted this.

 

Paragraph 128:  “Along with the revision of the revision of the liturgical books as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the disposition of material things involved in sacred worship.”  Now it may be very hard to find the tabernacle.  The altar has been replaced by a table. 

 

Appendix:

 

There are many spiritual time bombs in Vatican II….here is one:

“The feast of Easter may be moved to a Sunday”  changes a tradition as old as the church itself.

 

Who is to interpret Vatican II?  The Pope.  We shall see how He interprets Vatican II.  The Council was very ambiguous.  This has been condemned by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical “Auctorum Fide” where he condemns the Council of Pistoya saying the trick of the Modernists is to write in such a way as something can be interpreted in two ways.  Pius VI says the purpose of a Council is to clarify doctrine.  Pius X similarly condemns this ambiguity in Paschendi Dominici Gregious saying that one of the Modernist tricks is to give you some Catholic doctrine on one hand but take away some Catholic doctrine on the other. 

St. Cyprian says that if one point of Catholic doctrine is denied then all are denied and they are outside the Church.  Therefore Protestants are outside the Church and cannot really be called Christian.  All you can do is pray that they convert and come into the one true Church.  The same can said for those Catholics who accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. which was written up by Annibale Bugnini

(a known Freemason) & seven Protestant ministers amongst others.  These persons who accept Vatican II & the new mass are in material schism with the Church. 

 

Extraordinary Magesterium:  (Infallible Pronouncements)  When the Pope declares something on faith &/or morals, he declares that it must be believed, & he speaks with his full apostolic authority.  He does not add anything to Tradition, he simply says this is part of Tradition and the question is no longer up for discussion.  Divine Revelation (Tradition) ended with the death of the last Apostle.  The Pope is guardian of the deposit of faith.  The Pope does not have a guarantee of impeccability.

 

Ordinary Magesterium:  When Pope does not declare in solemn manner as above, he does not speak in an infallible manner but he still binds us to obedience.  Pius XII (Humani Generis) spoke against false opinions of Modernists that said we do not have to obey the Pope unless he speaks infallibly.  Pius XII said  in No. 20, “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority and generally what is expounded and inculcated in encyclical letters or for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine, but if the Supreme Pontiffs pass judgement on a matter up to that time in dispute, it is obvious that the matter according to the mind and will of the same Pontiff cannot be any longer considered a question open for discussion among theologians“  Therefore when Paul VI, Humanae Vitae that contraception is a mortal sin, or when Pope Pius IX condemned heresies in his Syllabus of Errors,  or when John Paul II says a woman priest is impossible, no Pope may say otherwise.

However do we follow a Pontiff who says heresy?  After all he is not guaranteed impeccability:

 

Pope Innocent III said “It is quite conceivable that a future Pope may teach heresy and put himself outside the Church in which case we must not follow him”  He did not say he ceases to be Pope.  He reminds his successors that “the less a person is judged by humans the harder he will be judged by God.”  Is it possible that out of 3000 bishops only 2 remained faithful to tradition?  Yes, we have seen this historically with Pope Liberius & St. Athanasius.

 

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the Modern World., Lumen Gentium:  November 21, 1964.

 

Paragraph 1 “The Church is in nature of sacrament, a sign...”  There are only 7 sacraments, the Church is not a sacrament.  The Church is a perfect society, not a sign.  It is the instrument of salvation for the world.  Christ came to unify in the faith.  “I did not come to bring peace but the sword.”  The Church may be an instrument of unity among all men but in actuality is not.

 

Paragraph 5:  The Church does not “grow to maturity”, it is a perfect society.  Pope Pius XII said it is a daring and wrong concept that the Church grows or matures in Humanae Generis.  The Church is indefectible, not her members.  Mt16:18.  The Church is a Monarchy not a democracy.

 

Paragraph 7:  Use of words “breaking of bread” which stresses meal aspect and not real presence.  This is not heresy but can lead to heresy.  (Note: recent poll of “Catholics” indicates only 30% believe in real presence).

 

Paragraph 8:  “entrusted the Church to Peters care, commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule it.”  This is the notion of collegiality.  Our Lord only gave Peter the supreme authority. Mt16.  Church called “a society” instead of “ a perfect society”.  The Church is said to “subsist” in the Catholic Church.  This is very close to heresy.  The Church of Christ does not subsist in the Catholic Church, it is the Catholic Church.  The Pope is the competent authority to interpret this text.  He (John Paul II) has said that the Russian Orthodox Church is our sister church and that the Ukrainian Church loyal to Rome somehow separated herself from her Mother Church (Russian Orthodox Church).  “Nevertheless many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines.  Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.”  What the text says is that we want to unite with the heretics and schismatics.  As they are alleged to have “elements of sanctification” they must subsist in the Church of Christ.  This is heresy against the dogma of the Church.  The Church is always unified “one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church”.  In reality elements of sanctification (e.g. baptism) is not outside the Catholic Church but is a sacrament illicitly used outside the Church which is property of the Church. 

 

Paragraph 13:  “These Churches retain their own traditions without in any way lessening the primacy of the chair of Peter.”  Confusing because it does not say the eastern churches united with Rome.  Seems to be interpreted by John Paul II as meaning those not in union with Rome.

 

#15 “The Church recognizes that she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety (i.e. the heretics) or do not preserve unity in communion with the successor of Peter (i.e. the schismatics)”  I would like to know how we are linked with the heretics and schismatics when the Church has dogmatically defined they are outside the Church.  This is heresy proxima.

“Likewise we can say that they are joined to us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also He gives His gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with His sanctifying power.  Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.”  This is direct heresy and blasphemy against the Council of Florence and Pope Eugene IV who said that “heretics even if they think they are shedding their blood for Christ cannot be saved.”  (Remember this is an objective statement).

 

#16 “Finally, those who have not yet received the gospel are related in various ways to the People of God”  Potentially this is true, actually it is not!  Are the Jews related to the Catholics? No.  St. Paul tells us that the Jews who reject Christ don’t even see the God the old testament clearly except through a veil.  Do the Jews worship the God of the New Testament (the Blessed Trinity)? No.  Is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New?  Yes  Therefore, the Jews have rejected the God of the Old Testament and we don’t worship the same God.  “the Moslems…together with us adore one merciful God”  This is blasphemy.  The Koran says the notion of God being a Trinity is excrement.  They are Pagans.  The Koran says to kill the infidels (that means us), therefore they adore one, merciful God (Allah) against us.  St. Paul says the gods of the pagans are demons.

 

#18 “those ministers who are endowed with sacred power are dedicated to the interests there brethren”  They are not!  They are to promote the interests of God, and our following God’s commands.

 

#22 “The supreme authority with which this college of bishops is empowered over the whole Church is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council”  The council of bishop does not have any supreme authority.  There are statements which contradict this statement before and after so why did they put it in there?  It can be interpreted incorrectly.

 

#25 “The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of bishops”  Heresy.  This is interpreted by John Paul II in Redemptor Hominus as unity consisting in the bishops conferences, parish councils, etc., not what it really is: unity under Peter’s successor, the unity of the liturgy, and the unity of faith.  We have the Soviet (council) Union in the Church.  This was done to weaken the power of the Papacy.

 

#29 “the diaconate can be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy”.  Council of Trent did not want anyone who was not striving for priesthood to receive minor orders.  “the diaconate will be able to be conferred upon those men…even in married state”.  Goes against teaching of St. Jerome that “only a celibate clergy may touch the sacred species and this comes from the mouth of Our Lord himself.”  St. Thomas Aquinas likewise teaches only consecrated hands can touch Holy Eucharist.  This allows for sacrileges.

 

#30  “everything said so far ..applies equally to laity, religious and clergy”  Clergy will be judged more harshly because of their position.

Addenda:  “The question has been raised what ought to be theological qualifications in this document…In view of the conciliar practice and pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly says so.”

 

Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) November 21, 1964.

 

I detest the term pilgrim church because of the way Vatican II uses it.  In Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)

#6 we read “Christ summons the Church as she goes on her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth.  Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has lead to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be distinguished from the deposit of faith itself), these should be properly rectified at the proper moment.”  Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos condemns the notion of necessary reformation.  The very concept of reformulation of doctrine is heresy and has been explicitly condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (On Ecumenism).  Pius XI says in

 

#12 “How so great a variety of opinions can clear the way for the unity of the Church we know not.  That unity can arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief, & one faith of Christians, but do we not know that from such a state of affairs (here Pius XI is referring to Protestant dialogue) that it is but an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to the error of the modernists who hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is changes according to the varying necessities of time and place and to the varying tendencies of the mind and it is not contained in an immutable tradition but can be altered to suit the needs of human life.” 

 

#13  “Furthermore, it is never lawful to employ in connection with articles of faith, the distinction invented by some between fundamental and non-fundamental articles, the former to be accepted by all and the later to be up to the free acceptance of the faithful.”  This is exactly what Unitatis Redintegratio does. 

In Unitatis Redintegaratio #8 it says “As for common worship…the practical course to be adopted, after due regard has been given to all the circumstances of time, place, and personage, is left to prudent decision of the local episcopal authority, unless the local Bishops’ conference according to its own statutes or the Holy See, has determined otherwise.”  The notion of common worship (communicatio insacris) with false religions has been condemned and been under the pain of excommunication for more than 1500 years.

 

And in #17 “…sometimes one tradition has come nearer than the other to an apt appreciation of certain aspects of a revealed mystery, or has expressed them in a clearer manner.”   This document dares to say that the eastern “orthodox” religions outside the Church understand doctrine better than Christ’s Church.  In Quo Primum, Pius V says that the Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all the Churches.  There is no such thing as a truth expressed better in another Church, even those united to Rome.  The Church Fathers and Popes have rejected such a notion up to Pius XII. 

 

#22 “The ecclesial communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery.  Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lords death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await His coming in glory.  For these reasons dialogue should be undertaken concerning the true meaning of the Lords Supper, other sacraments, and Churches worship and ministry.” This line is interpreted in the new liturgy.  It gives up the doctrine of the sacramental priesthood and the real presence on the altar when it demands dialogue with those who reject the teaching of the Church.  I explain the faith to the Protestants and then I tell them take it or leave it.  I don’t dialog.  This document lead to the meeting in 1965 between Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras.  The joint declaration called the excommunication in 1054 of Patriarch Michael who separated himself from Rome by St. Leo IX a “painful decision”.  John Paul II goes out of his way to apologize for St. Leo, St. Gregory VII excommunication of the emperor, St. Pius V war with the Turks, & in the Ballamand Agreement mocks the martyr St. Joseph for keeping the unity of the Ukrainian Church and Rome when the agreement asks the Ukrainian priests to submit to the authority of the local schismatic & heretical “Orthodox” bishop.  This is high treason and if it were not the Pope would require capital punishment.  However no earthly authority may judge the Pope on these things.  He is warned however by Innocent III, “the less a man is judged by men the more he will be judged by God.”  The duty of the Ukrainian priest is to resist this command against faith and morals.    (See Mortalium Animos).

 

 

Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation).

 

#8:  “This tradition of the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.  For there is a growth in understanding the realities and the words which have been handed down.  This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers who treasure these things in their hearts, through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.  For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach there complete fulfilment in her.”  No.  The Church is in possession of the full truth.  The Church cannot approach truth.  Tradition does not change due to the pondering of believers and the experiences make no difference to truth.  Only growth is in the deepening of the understanding.  St. Vincent of Lerins:  “There is a deepening of the understanding of the truth but in the same sense and in the same judgement”.  You cannot change doctrine because of some “better understanding”.  The most fraudulent document signed by John Paul II Ecclesia Dei:  #3 “…such disobedience constitutes a rejection of the Roman Primacy” referring to Archbishop Lefebvre consecration of bishops.  In the tradition of moral theology handed down to us consecrations against the will of the Pope were considered disobedience only and never a schismatic act. 

 

#4 of Ecclesia Dei:  “the root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition.  Incomplete in that it does not take into account the living character of tradition which as the Second Vatican Council teaches…” here John Paul II quotes Dei Verbum #8. John Paul II then talks about rejection of new doctrines.  There cannot be new doctrines!  Archbishop Lefebvre’s notion of tradition is exactly in accordance with Vatican I and Trent.

 

Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty):12/7/65

 

#1 “A sense of dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man”  Pius X says man has no dignity outside of bring a Christian.

 

#2 “The Vatican Synod declares the human person has the right to religious freedom.”  “the right to religious freedom has as its foundation the very dignity of the human person…”  “Thus it is to become a civil right”.  What do Catholics say about this?  Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos condemns this idea:  #15  “From this poison source of indifferentism flows that false and absurd or rather extravagant maxim that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man.  A most contagious error to which leads the absolute and unbridled liberty of opinion which for the ruin of Church and State spreads over the whole world and which some men by unbridled imprudence fear not to represent as advantages to the Church.  And what more certain death for souls says St. Augustine than liberty of error.”  In Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors he condemns the following statements:  Anyone who agrees with anyone of these statements is not a Catholic.

 

 #15 of Syllabus:  “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which guided by the light of reason he shall consider true.”  

#16 of Syllabus:  “Man may in the observance of any religion whatever find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation”

#17 of Syllabus:  “Good hope at least, is to be entertained in the eternal salvation of all those who are not in the true Church of Christ.”

#18 of Syllabus:   “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.”

#20 of Syllabus:  “The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without permission and assent of the civil government.”

#21 of Syllabus:  “The Church has not the power to dogmatically define that Catholic religion the only true religion.”

#22 of Syllabus:  The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things which are to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgement of the Church.

#77 of Syllabus:  “The present day it is no longer expedient for the Catholic religion be the only religion of state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”

#78 of Syllabus:  “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy public exercise of their own peculiar worship.”

#79 of Syllabus:  Moreover it is false that the 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.”  

#80 of Syllabus:  “The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”

 

Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted that Vatican II is an anti-Syllabus.

 

#2 of Dignitatis Humanae cont’d:  “…he cannot be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.”  The Church has never contradicted this statement.  The Church simply says if do not correspond with the teaching of the Church you will go to hell.

#4 Requests civil authorities to give complete freedom for all schismatic, heretical, and pagan sects to spread there error.  Condemned by Pius IX in #20-22,77-80 of Syllabus.  Traditionally government would have to submit to the Papal authority.

Christ the King:  Pius XI Quas Primas.  Christ is King over all nations. This document never mentions Christ the King or his rights over all men.

 

 

The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes) 12/7/65:

 

Discusses the relation of the Church and the world today.  The Church wants to cooperate unreservedly with the world.  They toss out Christ the King.

#12 “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and non-believers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and summit.”  This is Satanism because it puts man in the position of God. 

 

#22 says that Christ reveals man to himself.  Catholics always were taught Christ reveals the Blessed Trinity.  “For by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every man.”  This is true potentially not actually.  The footnotes do not correspond with this statement.  “All this holds true not only for Christians but for all men of good will….”  Not true.  Our Lord says that unless your baptized in water and the Holy Spirit you cannot be saved.  Further more the Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire refers to a promise to get baptized at the first possible moment.

 

Pope Eugene IV (Council of Florence-1441AD):  “The Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that nobody who exists outside the Catholic Church, not only the pagans, but also not the Jews, also not the heretics, also not the schismatics, can be participants in eternal life, but they will go to the eternal fire prepared the devil and his angels unless they be joined with the Church before the end of their life.  And the Council, professes, believes and preaches the unity of this ecclesiastical body is worth so much that only those who remain with in her, and receive the salvation of the ecclesiastical sacraments, and profess them, and do their fastings and works and all the other offices of piety and all the other exercises of Christian virtues will have the eternal Christ.  Nobody how ever many works he has done, even if he thinks he sheds his blood for Christ can be saved if he is not within the Catholic Church and its union.” – objective judgement.  Objectively when John Paul II says in Ut Unun Sint that “saints come from all religions” he pronounces heresy and blasphemy. 

 

#88 “Christians should collaborate willingly and wholeheartedly in the establishment of an international order…”  This was written by Jose Maria Escriba de Balegair of the Opus Dei.

 

#27 Paschendi Domenichi Gregious of St. Pius X condemns the above statement.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Wow, tldr. Got a link?