Posts Tagged ‘Paul VI’

“completion of thy ministry” equivalent to “ministry of the High Priesthood”

Monday, May 2nd, 2011

It is often argued that the new rite of ordination of bishop lacks the essential idea to constitute the making of a bishop, but when we read the whole prayer of ordination in usage since 1968, we see that is not the case.

Here’s why.

A recent commentary by a person suggests to us that: “the sedevacantist thesis will fall, (not that the Conciliar popes will not be condemned or Vatican II cannot be revoked), but sedevacantism is a matter of private judgment that is fallible, because it’s based on non-credible sources. But you know what, if I had lived during the Borgia papacy and witnessed the corruption of Rome and in the hierarchy, I would have been a sedevacantist too.
 
Believe me, it pains me to see what has happened since the 60’s and I really believe either we are heading toward the final end or there will be a restoration, but not the one envisioned by sedevacantist.
 
My concern with this is to show that Paul VI could have been mistaken on the essential form for the new rite of episcopal ordination. A sedevacantist told me distinctively that he agrees that the latter part of the whole form of the new rite of ordination of bishop would constitute as an equivalent for the order of bishop (the ministry of the high priesthood), when it says “Serving you night and day, may he fulfill before you without reproach the ministry of the High Priesthood;”. This has been the particular translation used for many dioceses since the change by Paul VI. BUT, he [the sedevacantist] says that it is not what Paul VI has declared as the essential form, the bare minimum. Ridiculous.

That is without a doubt the same equivalent of “fulfill in thy priest the completion of thy ministry… raiment of all glory”. Notice “raiment of all glory” is a literary abstraction.
 
And we are told that the whole rite of the traditional form is necessary. I agree, and so is the whole of the new rite.
 
I believe one day, the new pope, or anyone who will ascend will make the necessary correction from what was believed by Paul VI to what I have shown as the essential form (bare minimum) for validity. When you look at the whole of the new rite of prayer of ordination of bishop, it’s very beautiful and clear. The essential form cited by Paul VI would have endowed (implicitly) the power in context with the preceding prayer request for the “power flowing from the horn of priestly grace” which is the literal translation of the source of the fullness of the priesthood. The form of Paul VI gives explicitly the idea of the source of power, so the latter part would have confirmed it.”

conclusion to “rejecting sedevacantism” by paleocrat on youtube video

Friday, July 16th, 2010

It is not a matter of rejecting sedevacantism that makes you a heretic, but what you must espouse as a consequence to rejecting sedevacantism and after having been exposed to the doctrinal and ecclesiological problems of the Conciliar church (Vatican II establishment). You must choose between light and darkness. God’s position is 100% truth, and the devil’s aping of God’s Church is 99.9% and .1% at best, there is no in between. Either you are for God or against Him.

The Conciliar church has established itself with new doctrine, new theology, new discipline, New Mass, New Canon Law, New Luminous Rosary, New saints, New sacraments, New environmental sins, New doctrine on the Limbo of the Infants, New instant beatification process, New practice of ecumenism with false religions, and ultimately in line for the New World Order (of which both Paul VI and John Paul II have called for), what more can you ask? If they wanted to be the Catholic Church, why couldn’t they stick to the original plan of God? Why completely reorient the pastoral and the activity life of the Church?

Do you prefer to be subject to public heretics? They cannot believe in No Salvation Outside the Church and remain a practicing Novus Ordo. They cannot reject the Divine Law of God, against praying and worshiping with non-Catholics and unbelievers and remain Catholic.

You spoke of hierarchical anarchy when precisely that is what took place between the good and fallen angels. If it could have happened at the beginning of creation, what makes you think it could not happen now? If it is still the hierarchy of orders (more or less of apostate clerics), having jurisdiction is another issue. The power of jurisdiction requires and demands of public profession of the Catholic faith, without any deviation whatsoever. There is a true anarchy when there is a rebellion against authority. However, in the Catholic Church public heretics are not presumed to have authority… is there an human hierarchy, more or less, composed of apostate priests? Yes, but without jurisdiction. This crisis in the Church is the separation of the structural institution from Catholics who ought to have jurisdiction by an impediment of foreign occupation, which is why the apostasy cannot be eliminated until a true Catholic possesses the head office of the Church to animate, or bring back to life, the Catholic Faith to the structural integrity of the institution of the Church.

It can only happen when all heresies are extirpated and heretics are rejected and condemned.

Msgr. Bruno Gherardini’s heresies and the admittance of doctrinal problems with Vatican II, part 2

Monday, July 5th, 2010

Does Msgr. Bruno Gherardini really believe there are doctrinal problems with an ecumenical council of the Church signed by the Pope?

The idea itself is heretical and should be censored!

The stark reality of it all, however, is this: Each Vatican II document ended with the following (or very similar) words:

“Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.”

The question is: Has the Church “approved, decreed, and established” these things– ecumenism (ceaseless dialogue with false religions), expanded ecclesiology (branch theory encompassing paganism), religious liberty (civil right of man for every religion), and collegiality (the supreme authority of the bishops in union with the pope) “in the Holy Spirit,”– and have they been “promulgated for the glory of God”?

Whoever believes Paul VI to have been a true Pope, must answer YES to this. But such is contrary to the truth!

All the talk about “nothing binding” and “not infallible” and “the Pope secretly said you don’t have to abide by it” is all a bunch of hooey and an old canard that is pulled out now and again and always runs afoul of the simple truth that Paul VI promulgated all this junk “to the glory of God” and blasphemously claimed that the Holy Ghost endorsed the approval and decreeing of the Vatican II documents.

Paul VI And The New World Order

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Paul VI at United Nations

It’s interesting to note that the NWO (New World Order) needs a political, social, economic, and spiritual framework to establish itself globally. What better choice to march forward with the banner in religion than through the institution of the Catholic Church? Using the Catholic Church as an agency couldn’t be any more grandeur than the UN (United Nations) in their respective arena, or could it?

The social and civil, moral and spiritual teaching of the institution has to conform to the universal declaration of human rights. This can now be found in policy-making of both the UN (United Nations) and the Novus Ordo.

Ever since the election of John XXIII, the institution has become an advocate of humanitarian work for global cooperation to bring about peace and a common goal with all men in spite of religious differences, founded on the principles of the UN (United Nations). What kind of world are we talking about? A new world order, of course. A world built on new a political and natural socio-political ideology. A world deprived of dogmatic truth of the Catholic Church.

With the reign of Paul VI, efforts have been made to change the activity of the Catholic Church to that of being a servant for humanity. Instead of looking at the Church as the last great hope of mankind, Paul VI has made it clear that the role has been delegated to the UN (United Nations).

But how do we know that Paul VI promoted the new world order?

(Populorum Progressio, 1967)

“Finally, We look to all men of good will, reminding them that civil progress and economic development are the only road to peace. Delegates to international organizations, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators—all of you must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a new world order.”

no. 83;

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

Paul VI and The Smoke of Satan

Monday, March 15th, 2010

I found this article on a blog, and so I’ll make it available here for citation and future reference.

Paul VI

“Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. There is no longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life. And we are not alert to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula of true life. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by windows that should have been open to the light. Science exists to give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science gives us criticism and doubt. Scientists are those who more thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds. But they end up teaching us: “I don’t know, we don’t know, we cannot know.” The school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd contradictions. Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world.

This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church. There was the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. Instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty. We preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others. We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in.

FOR A LIFEGIVING AND REDEEMING “CREDO”

How has this come about? The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to those who are present: that there has been an intervention of an adverse power. Its name is the devil, this mysterious being that the Letter of St. Peter also alludes to. So many times, furthermore, in the Gospel, on the lips of Christ himself, the mention of this enemy of men returns. The Holy Father observes, “We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself. Precisely for this reason, we should wish to be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers. We should wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.” Faith gives us certitude, security, when it is based upon the Word of God accepted and consented to with our very own reason and with our very own human spirit. Whoever believes with simplicity, with humility, sense that he is on the good road, that he has an interior testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of the truth.”

Paradoxical Council Critic

Monday, March 8th, 2010

Abbé George de Nantes passes away

“In the early morning of February 15, the abbé Georges de Nantes fell asleep in the Lord, fortified by the rites of the Church. He was one of the earliest, fiercest public critics of the Second Vatican Council, which he held to be a legitimate ecumenical council of the true Church, endowed with the authority to teach dogmatically and infallibly. The Council, he held, and with reason, finally declined to teach with that level of authority. Therefore its teachings were not definitively binding, and dissent from those teachings did not exclude a member of the Faithful from communion with the Church.…”

Related links:
Catholic Counter-Reformation of the XXI Century
Abbé de Nantes on the Principal Errors of Vatican II ecclesiology

NOW Comments:
When one considers the history of opposition to the robber council of John XXIII/Paul VI, Abbé Georges de Nantes (1924-2010 – RIP) and his Catholic Counter-Reformation group are seen to hold a place similar to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, The Remnant, etc. in taking a stance sometimes referred to as recognize-and-resist, meaning that one accepts the Council, the Novus Ordo Church, Popes and Bishops all as legitimate Catholic authority, yet opposing whatever teaching or actions are seen as contrary to the Faith. Like all the rest, the Abbé arrived at this conclusion by making artificial distinctions. For example, in his case Vatican II could and did teach not just errors, but outright heresies (see “Principal Errors” link above), yet still must be regarded as a legitimate council merely because it was a “pastoral” council that didn’t seek to teach infallibly. Yet this is comparing apple and oranges, because whether or not it sought to teach infallibly has no bearing whatsoever when it comes to heresy; simply put, the teachings of a council, if it be truly legitimate, are part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and cannot contradict prior manifestations of the same Magisterium, especially when the earlier Magisterium dogmatically and infallibly ruled something to be either on the one hand a dogma of the Faith, or on the other hand, a heresy. The authentic Magisterium of the Church cannot and does not contradict itself, for if it did Catholics would have no sure rule of Faith. The Abbé is perhaps best known for his three Liberi Accusationis (Books of Accusation―the above photo shows him in Rome with his book against Paul VI), in which castigated the heresies and other errors of Paul VI, John Paul II and the author of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church (“Cardinal” Christoph Schönborn). Not surprisingly, these works were ignored by Modernist Rome despite him journeying to the Vatican to hand deliver them (Paul VI actually forbade him to set foot in the Vatican and police were dispatched). Ironically, although the Abbé mistook Benedict XVI as a restorer of Tradition, it was none other than “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who in 1993 accepted, then totally ignored the Book of Accusation against the false Catechism, despite it having had 267 co-signers. Paradoxically and sadly, the Abbé de Nantes never seemed to realize that there was a reason for the total futility of his well-intentioned efforts: He wasn’t dealing with Catholics. While praying for the repose of his soul, let us be grateful for the many good writings he’s left, but follow neither him nor the SSPX down the dead ends they travel in their dealings with Modernists.