Indefectibility and Una Cum
[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.
[Taken from the September issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]
In a recent speech, reported by the website wherepeteris, Cardinal Burke proposed yet another episode of his curious manner of dealing with the heresies of Bergoglio.Continue reading
This is really nothing new, as we already know that Vatican II sees non-Catholic religions as having value in the order of salvation, indeed as means of salvation, which is an explicit heresy.
What is interesting about Bergoglio’s statement, however, is that he openly approves of freedom of conscience, that is, the right to choose whatever religion you want and to practice it.
In order to respect diversity, dialogue must seek to promote every person’s right to life, to physical integrity, and to fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, of thought, of expression and of religion. This includes the freedom to live according to one’s beliefs in both the private and public spheres. In this way, Christians and Muslims – as brothers and sisters – can work together for the common good.
What Bergoglio states here was solemnly condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura. What is significant, however, is that he repeats not only Vatican II’s call for the freedom to practice one’s religion, but also freedom of conscience.
Conscience is none other than man’s intellect in the act of determining the morality of an act to be done here and now. Conscience is not a faculty which discovers the truth, but instead is merely the application of the law to a determined act. Consequently the conscience is not free to choose what it pleases, but is necessarily bound to the law which it must apply to the acts we perform.
Freedom of conscience is therefore an impious doctrine, since it releases the intellect from its duty to know the law of God and to apply it. Man has no right to freedom of conscience. Why? Because
God has revealed a religion and a law, and all consciences must accept and obey this religion and this law.
The Catholic Church does not exclude, provided there be serious reasons which justify it, a toleration of false religions, but it can in no way condone the tenet that one has a right to a false religion. For all right is based in God and emanates from God. Right is a moral faculty — ability — to posit an act which is morally correct, that is, which is in conformity with God’s law. The very thought that God would posit a right in someone to defy Him by embracing a false religion is blasphemy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.