While all of us are sickened to see the horror in our cities on the part of leftist fascists, we must nonetheless reflect on our own history in order to understand it better.Continue reading
In a second letter dated June 14, 2020, that is, merely five days after his “bombshell” letter about Vatican II and its reforms, the Novus Ordo Archbishop made a startling statement regarding the Council. As he put it, “it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten.” He also pointed out that Vatican II is to be blamed as an event that caused enormous problems in the Church. This is one of the reasons why he thinks it should be “forgotten.”
He quotes favorably a Professor Pasqualucci who considers Vatican II to be a conciliabulum, the classic term for a fake council: “If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”
The Archbishop also says: “There is an urgent need to restore the Bride of Christ to her two-thousand-year Tradition and to recover the treasures that have been plundered and scattered, thus permitting the disoriented flock to be fully nourished by them.”
While the idea of annulling Vatican II is, of course, a wonderful idea, I am surprised that Abp. Viganò does not see the obvious problem: Unlike the other fake councils in the Church’s history, this one was promulgated in full by the “authority” of Paul VI. In short, you cannot annul Vatican II without also annulling the authority of him who promulgated it. Otherwise you end up with a Church which is capable of leading souls to hell. Indeed, has that not been the effect of this Council, if we contemplate the devastating loss of faith on the part of billions of souls? Is it not right and true to say: “An enemy hath done this?”
Archbishop Viganò’s recent comments are, of course, encouraging, but nothing will come of his intervention unless the problem of Paul VI and the Vatican II “popes” is addressed. Indeed, we must also include John XXIII in this group, since Vatican II represented not only a council which pronounced heresies, but, what is worse, created a mentality of revolution in the Church that has brought it to its ruin. It unleashed a spirit of heresy, a lust for rupture with the past, a maniacal detestation of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The Antifa hordes in our streets are to our country what John XXIII and Paul VI sparked in the Church. Since John XXIII was the originator of this revolution, he too, as I see it, must be included in the enemy which has done this.
Bishop Schneider’s statement. On the feast of Pentecost Bishop Schneider issued a lengthy statement in which he rightly criticized Vatican II for having errors, concentrating particularly on Dignitatis Humanæ, which proclaims the moral right to embrace false religions. In this he was correct, of course. However, his solution was very seriously erroneous, namely that the Church’s councils can err, and are in need of correction occasionally. He then went on to point out “errors” in past councils.Continue reading
There are many traditional Catholics who, in an effort to find a precedent to our current problem in the Church, look to the Great Western Schism as this precedent. The Great Western Schism was a split among Catholics which took place from 1378 to 1417. It was caused by the election of two different popes simultaneously.Continue reading
While the coronavirus has been certainly a matter of some concern, I still believe that the reaction to it was disproportionate to its dangers, and that restrictions imposed upon the economic life of the country have been devastating.Continue reading
In recent weeks we have seen, day by day, a panic develop among the general population over the coronavirus. What first started out as a moderate response to this new virus has now become a frenzied mania. Below are my reflections on this whole debacle.Continue reading
[Taken from the January issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]
I am sure that most are familiar with our strict stance on attendance at the una cum Mass. We, the clergy of the Roman Catholic Institute, hold that it is objectively sacrilegious to actively participate in a Mass in which Bergoglio (or the local N.O. bishop) is mentioned in the canon.Continue reading
Whereas during the “reigns” of John Paul II and Benedict XVI there was a certain hesitation about going too far in their heretical pronouncements and practices — although there were some blatant cases of heterodoxy and heteropraxis (actions which bespeak heresy) — we have seen in the “reign” of Francis a new boldness. Francis, for example, has recently denied the divinity of Christ and Transubstantiation (He said: “Christ becomes the bread”). Earlier he has denied the existence of hell, saying that bad souls are merely annihilated at death, has denied the unity of God (calling the single divine essence merely “God Spray”), has called the Church’s mission to preach the gospel “solemn nonsense,” has stated that atheists can go to heaven, said that sometimes God wants you to commit adultery “in order to keep the family together,” and has taught that those who live in adultery can approach Holy Communion. These are merely some of his outrageous statements. Add to this the introduction of the Pachamama idolatry into the Vatican.
Recently, in the context of the idolatrous worship, the Vatican website produced an article which explicitly teaches the heresy of evolution of dogma, condemned by Saint Pius X. Read this from the Vatican News website:
It is necessary to understand when a development of doctrine is faithful to tradition. The history of the Church teaches us that it is necessary to follow the Spirit, rather than the strict letter. In fact, if one is looking for non-contradiction between texts and documents, they’re likely to hit a roadblock. The point of reference is not a written text, but the people who walk together. [emphasis added]
So the Vatican is now saying through this article on its website that there will be contradictions found between texts, i.e., between what was taught before, and what is taught now. The author cites the ludicrous example of the Council of Jerusalem, in which it was decided that the ritualistic rules of the Old Law would not apply any more. He gives a better example, however: that of the contradiction concerning the teaching about the salvation of unbaptized babies. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, upheld by the Catechism of Saint Pius X, excludes the possibility of the beatific vision for unbaptized babies. The Catechism of the Koran-kissing “Saint” John-Paul II, however, gives a nebulous and typically Modernist gobbledygook answer that would lead you to believe that they do achieve the beatific vision.
So the Vatican, albeit informally, now admits that there is contradiction in dogma. This is a historic admission, for it is precisely what the sedevacantists have been saying all along. We have been criticized mercilessly by Novus Ordo conservatives as being “off the wall” and “too far.” But now they must face the facts as they are uttered by Vatican Modernists.
It all goes back to Vatican II. In response to the Pachamama scandal, a spokesman for the SSPX made the comment saying essentially that there is nothing new here. This is just more of the same.
I completely agree with him. Pachamama has permission to be in the Vatican Basilica from Vatican II, which says that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. Remember that there was the worship of fire permitted at Assisi in 1986, as well as the worship of the Great Thumb by the American Indians. There is nothing new. That is absolutely correct. It means that SSPX ought to condemn Vatican II instead of trying to make peace with it.
For this reason, Fr. Cekada recently said it perfectly in his recent blog: Instead of throwing the Pachamama idol in the Tiber, they should have thrown the documents of Vatican II in the Tiber. And this time put weights on it.