On July 24, 1966, just over six months after the close of Vatican Council II, Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, issued a document entitled:
Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences regarding some sentences and errors arising from the interpretation of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council
With the coming of the letter’s 50th anniversary, any number of so-called “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) pointed to Cardinal Ottaviani’s exhortation as evidence that the conciliar text had become a source of confusion and turmoil in the Church – and on many of the same points so hotly contested today – almost immediately upon its promulgation.
Indeed, it is amazing just how well the Pro-Prefect’s observations speak to the present situation in the Church.
For example, among the “opinions and errors” decried by Cardinal Ottaviani as “causing great disturbance among the faithful” are the following:
– The ordinary Magisterium of the Church, particularly that of the Roman Pontiff, is sometimes neglected and diminished, until it is relegated almost to the sphere of a mere opinion.
– Some almost refuse to acknowledge truth that is objective, absolute, stable, and immutable, submitting everything to a certain relativism, with the pretext that every truth necessarily follows an evolutionary rhythm according to conscience and history.
– Some consider of little account the doctrine of the Council of Trent regarding original sin, or explain it in a way that at least obfuscates the original fault of Adam and the transmission of his sin.
How little has changed over the last fifty years! And yet, how much…
Today, each one of the aforementioned opinions and errors feature rather prominently, not just in the writings of certain prelates, but in the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia!
While all that has been said of Cardinal Ottaviani’s letter thus far is noteworthy indeed, there is another, more intriguing, aspect to the text that has been largely overlooked.
Note well that Cardinal Ottaviani, as the title to the letter suggests, attributes the crisis at hand to “the interpretation of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council.”
In the body of the letter itself, he blames the “disturbance” on “abuses regarding the interpretation of the conciliar doctrine,” and calls for his brothers in the sacred hierarchy to see to it that the conciliar decrees are “properly interpreted and implemented with the utmost fidelity to their merit and their spirit.”
He even went on to say:
All of the people of God are bound by the grave duty to strive with all diligence to put into effect all that has been solemnly proposed or decreed, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, by the universal assembly of the bishops presided over by the Supreme Pontiff.
My friends, criticizing Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani is enough to get one stoned in certain “traditional” circles, but let’s not be afraid to state to truth:
Staunch defender of the Faith though he was, even Cardinal Ottaviani wasn’t immune to the disorientation of which Our Lady of Fatima forewarned.
The reality is that the crisis he was addressing, the same through which we are currently living, is not simply a matter of misinterpretation and faulty implementation of the conciliar doctrine; it is the result of ambiguities and errors in the text of the Council itself.
Bearing in mind the Biblical caution concerning “a little leaven,” this text has no “merit” as Cardinal Ottaviani suggests. As for its “spirit,” it’s hardly necessary to state the obvious.
As such, it is a grave mistake, and indeed rather dangerous, to anoint said text as that which was “solemnly proposed or decreed, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.”
Lastly, the good Cardinal was just plain wrong to suggest that “the people of God are bound” by the conciliar propositions.
(NB: The Appendix to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, states: “Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.” No such “open declarations” appear anywhere in the sixteen documents produced by the Council.)
So, what does all of this demonstrate?
Apart from Divine assistance, no one – not even a giant of the Faith like Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviaini – is entirely immune to the confusion that is sown by the hand of the Master Deceiver; in the present case, as made manifest in the event and decrees of Vatican Council II.
Knowing this, and ever solicitous of our wellbeing, Our Blessed Lord sent His mother to three shepherd children in Fatima in 1917 to forewarn us, and to show us the way to avoid falling prey to diabolical disorientation.
Specifically, as acknowledged by Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a close friend to Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, the latter admitted to him that the Third Secret of Fatima has not yet been fully revealed, and it warns of a “bad Council and a bad Mass.”
This is why Our Lady asked that the Third secret be revealed in 1960, saying that “it would be clearer then.” She tried to protect us!
We all know what happened. Devious men chose to ignore her, and for this a price must be paid, in justice, one that affects both the good and the bad.
For us, the lesson should be clear:
Stay very close to Our Lady, that she may take us under her mantle and shield us from the wiles of the Devil.
[This article was originally published by the Fatima Center. Please visit their website often and support their efforts as you are able!]
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX, quote from his interview in The Remnant, 2006:
S.H. So if you say that the proper way to interpret the Council is in the light of the “new philosophy,” how must the Church deal with this Council?
H.L.(Bishop Tissier de Mallerais) I will say, one day the Church should erase this Council. She will not speak of it anymore. She must forget it. The Church will be wise if she forgets this council.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:
“This adulterous union has been the principal purpose of the Second Vatican Council according to Gaudium et Spes, No. 11 – this council has the plan to introduce into the Doctrine of the Faith the best matured values of two centuries of Liberalism – the values of two centuries of liberalism – the one that introduced these errors of liberalism into the Doctrine of the Faith. That has been the main purpose of the Second Vatican Council. And so it was impossible that this Council be assisted by the assistance of the Holy Ghost in as much as it applied this bad and perverse intention of introducing the errors of the liberalism into the Doctrine of the Faith. That is impossible! So, this council, in as much as it applied this intention, has no binding obligation – has no authority of teaching. We do not – we do not accept that the council be a true Council.”
Bishop de Galarreta, SSPX:
“Archbishop Lefebvre had correctly seen and described the evil of our time, of society, and above all the evil in the Church. This evil is called quite simply liberalism. It is this conciliation, this attempt at conciliation between the Church and the world, between the Catholic faith and liberal principles, between the Catholic religion and the thought that sprang from 1789. It is all there, the whole problem lies there. All the rest is nothing but theoretical, subtle, sophisticated proofs by modernist theology to justify this adaptation made by the Second Vatican Council and by the authorities with the world that sprang from the French Revolution, with the liberal world.
And I would like to quote to you some remarks that we owe to the man who was then Cardinal Ratzinger, in which he simply and clearly affirms precisely that. Out of a concern for fidelity and accuracy, I will read them to you. They are rather brief.
“Vatican II was right in its desire for a revision of the relations between the Church and the world. There are in fact values, which, even though they originated outside the Church, can find their place—provided they are clarified and corrected—in her perspective [on the world].” (Cardinal Ratzinger and Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report [Ignatius Press, 1985], p. 36.)
“The problem in the Sixties was to acquire the best values expressed by two centuries of liberal culture.” (Interview with Vittorio Messori in the monthly magazine Jesus, November 1984, p. 72.)
The present pope, Benedict XVI, at that time Cardinal Ratzinger, likewise shows how the Constitution Gaudium et spes is the “testament of the Council”. He points out its intention and describes its features in these terms:
“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the [document] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the [documents] on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus…. The document serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology [Ignatius Press, 1987], pp. 381-382.)
These are rather clear texts and statements. It is an authoritative admission of capital importance which spares us the trouble of proving these statements. If they themselves confess that this is the case, there is no longer any need for us to prove it. Vatican II was altogether a conciliation of the Catholic religion, of the Church’s faith with liberalism, with the revolution and the principles of the French Revolution, and even—as the pope says elsewhere—a reconciliation of the idea of faith with Enlightenment thinking. These statements call for several reflections and comments.
First of all, how is it possible that there should be values affecting [both] the natural and the supernatural orders so substantially—to convince oneself of this it is enough to look at the Church before and after the Council!—and how can those value originate outside the Church? Is the Church then not the depositary of Truth? Is not the Catholic Church the true Church? And has Truth then evolved at the mercy of history and of times, cultures, and places? It is not correct to say that these are values that originated outside the Church. Decades ago the author Chesterton used to say that the ideas of the French Revolution were Catholic ideas gone mad. And we could say more precisely: these are Catholic truths unduly transposed to the natural order, ideas that are true in the supernatural order, within limits, but which have been transposed directly to the natural order…”
“If the Second Vatican Council had really taken liberal values and had corrected, purified and amended them, then they would quite simply have rediscovered the perennial Catholic truth, since they were distorted Christian truths. Liberalism is a Christian, Catholic heresy (with respect to its origin, I mean).
On the other hand, it was nevertheless reckless to attempt this conciliation when the constant Magisterium of the popes, for two and a half centuries, has condemned these supposed “values”: they have been condemned wholesale and retail. Not only the possibility of such a conciliation was condemned, but also the necessity of declaring such a conciliation. This is the Syllabus; this is Pius IX.
Here you have one of the original sins of the Council. Very often they set before our eyes the Magisterium and the Church’s authority. Often that is the only argument that they have. Whereas they began by getting rid of two and a half centuries of the Magisterium and by doing precisely what the popes had condemned in advance. That is more than reckless.”
MANY of my family and friends who are deeply immerced in the post-conciliar “church” never heard of the Second Vatican Council. They ignorantly believe that the “church” they attend has been unchanged since the time of Peter and the Apostles. The younger ones don’t have a clue and the older ones have lost their memory to modernism whether they know it or not. Mission accomplished! The consequences are worse than we know….until the triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
Apparently, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais holds the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration as invalid, and the 1968 Rite of Priestly Ordination as gravely doubtful.
Even if the new Ordination rite is valid, it is of no effect whatsoever if the Bishop using it is himself consecrated in the New rite.
It is worth anyone’s time and effort to look into this serious matter for himself/herself, as the implications, if the argument holds water, are catastrophic.
Benedict XVI was himself ordained to the Priesthood in 1951, but consecrated as a Bishop in the 1968 rite of Paul VI, who, of course also gave us the Novus Ordo Missae.
Jorge Bergoglio was ordained a Deacon in the old rite, but ordained as a priest and consecrated a bishop in the new rite.
The Novus Ordo Missae is the principle means of the ordinary layman being in contact with the Church.
The Novus Ordo Missae supresses the essential nature and purpose of the Mass, giving way to modernism and ecumenism.
The Novus Ordo Missae does not therefore profess the Catholic Faith, and by attending it, the faithful are not professing the true Faith.
Pius XII said that Baptism and the profession of the true Faith are both necessary to be considered a member of the Catholic Church.
Those who attend the New Mass eventually lose the Faith, and therefore are unable to identify heresy when it is right in front of them.
Whether or not they are culpable is for God to determine, but nevertheless, they still materially lose the Catholic faith and fail to profess it.
Such was the fate of millions of souls in England and Germany, who began as Catholics, but had their Faith taken away from them by attending the new church services of heretics in the Sixteenth Century. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Thus, the Novus Ordo Missae cannot possibly come from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but a great counterfeit religion which retains some vestige of Catholicism in order to deceive the faithful.
I am a little suspicious about Cardinal Ottavani writing this with the use of the words “Holy Spirit” and “the people of God”. The Church had always used the term Holy Ghost and very rarely spoke of Catholics as “the people of God”-until Vatican II.
Papal Subject-That’s how I see it also. There are no graces in the N.O.
I can relate closely to what you have said. I spent 40 years in the wilderness of the Vatican II Church before folks like Louie and Fr. Gruner got my attention. Today even my own children think I’m a ‘nutcake” for having returned to Tradition,
I have been through the painful mental anguish of sorting through the scenario you describe.
I took much of my own “time and effort to look into this serious matter” for myself. As you said above, “the implications, if the argument holds water, are catastrophic.”
A terrible plight indeed.
I then read all the books about Our Lady of Good Success.
In the 1600’s under the title of Our Lady of Good Success, Our Blessed Mother promised that a saint, a victim soul, would live in Her convent in Quito, Ecuador, until the end of time. I have since dismissed the anguish of these thoughts (that perhaps we have NO VALID clergy), knowing that if a saint could live under these conditions with only the daily Novus Ordo Mass offered to her in her convent, then the new ordinations (although perhaps repulsive to God) must be considered valid.
I do not mean to make light of this terrible scenario that you mention above, only that, as Cortez said so well in one of the previous posts, I do not have to worry about that one. Our Lady of Good Success will triumph.
As She said at Fatima, “In the end My Immaculate Heart will Triumph.”
Also, Fr. Ripperger, an exorcist, reported that he is not able to do exorcisms unless he has the permission of the Bishop of the diocese that he is in. Thus, proving that the authority of the Bishop, (who was, no doubt, consecrated to according to the new rite) is valid.
God is accepting the bishop’s authority.
There is a saying in Our Catholic Church:
Ecclesia supplet. (Please forgive me if I have misspelled it.)
It means “the Church supplies.”
In times like these, I am hoping in that.
I posted a question to you about “Dr. Coomaraswamy” on a previous post.
I’m thanking God He fixed it so rotten fruit gets moldier and smellier every day until even a person with a weak nose and bad eyesight would throw it out.
The Satanic delusion that the Holy Spirit inspired V-II because God willed The Church to turn it’s back on 2,000 years of “clearly understood meaning”
of Dogma and praxis, is going to the trashbin of history, along with evil concepts like – a mortal sinner, “under certain circumstances”, is welcome to receive and worthy of Holy Communion, without giving up their sin.
It’s gonna get worse, now, but that just means we’re closer to Divine intervention in a big way. I wish they’d skip all the play- acting and just announce a date to get branded with 666 if you still want to buy, sell, eat or get your ration of water. I’m not kidding. It’s going to be called, “financial inclusion”…
Lifesite News reported today (what should be headlined: “Beast rising from sea to officially convene New World Order) :
” Time/Fortune Global Forum 2016 just announced their inaugural gathering of the world’s top 500 CEOs and Time magazine’s 100 most influential people to be held ” IN THE VATICAN, DEC. 2-3, 2016. The conference will be capped by an address from the Holy Father.”.
…..“Time Inc. is honored to present this unique gathering of GLOBAL INFLUENCERS…..
“It’s motto: “The 21st Century Challenge: FORGING A NEW SOCIAL COMPACT,” CEOs — including IBM, Johnson & Johnson, McKinsey, PepsiCo, and Siemens as well as non-profit organizations, including the Rockefeller and Ford foundations will lead discussions aimed toward FINDING CONCRETE SOLUTIONS FOR PROBLEMS OF GLOBAL HEALTH, FOOD AND WATER, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT and FINANCIAL INCLUSION to combat poverty on an international scale. Lifesite news warns: “The Rockefeller and Ford foundations have deep ties to Planned Parenthood and have supported efforts to spread abortion in other countries.”
…” TIME explained that Pope Francis plays a central role in the efforts for social justice by speaking out on issues as global economics, the growing wealth gap, and his tatement that the “distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is a moral obligation.”…”We are hopeful that THIS RARE EVENT IN PARTNERSHIOP WITH THE VATICAN has the potential TO IMPACT THE WAY THE WORLD THINKS about these issues,” …
..” a video titled “Why TIME chose POPE FRANCIS,” [MAN OF THE YEAR, 2013] TIME …explained: it is Pope Francis’ “openness” to people with homosexual tendencies, women who have had abortions, and “divorced” and “remarried” Catholics that inspired the nomination. “He is just more open
SO THESE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO COME BACK TO THE CHURCH,
WITHOUT HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE ACUTAL RULES.”.
Garbage day is coming… Hold on to your Bibles and Rosaries and do the right thing.
Here’s another part of Bishop Tissier’s interview in 2006:
S.H. My lord, The Angelus recently reprinted a study by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P. which postulated that the new rite of consecration for Bishops was valid – this being a question since this Holy Father is the first to be Pope while being consecrated in the New Rite. There is, circulating on the Internet, statements that the Archbishop doubted the validity of the new rites of Episcopal consecration…
H.L. No, no, no. He never discussed the matter, never. No, no.
S.H. So there has never been a question in the Society about the validity of any of the new sacraments?
H.L. Archbishop Lefebvre never discussed the validity of Episcopal consecrations.
S.H. No, not about the episcopacy?
H.L. I do not know his mind on this subject. The new rite regarding Episcopacy, he did not know it. He did not study these matters – or read it. Because simply, he continued with the Old Rite.
I hear you, and you make some interesting points.
However, the Magisterium of the Church is superior to private revelations and concrete experiences of individuals, and if there is a contradiction, then the Magisterium must have the final say. Otherwise, we end up in the personal experiences of evangelicalism as a new magisterium.
If we compare what Pope Pius XII said in Sacramentum Ordinis, regarding what the essence of the sacrament of Holy Orders is, and what is necessary for validity, and compare it to Paul VI’s 1968 rites, then there is a very serious doubt, or even plain certainty, about the new rites failing to produce the sacramental effect.
The anguish of soul that is caused by looking more and more deeply into the Crisis is almost beyond comprehension.
I can’t tell you how many sleepless nights I have had over the past few years while studying these issues.
It seems the answer to the crisis is that a satanic counterfeit religion is masquerading as Catholicism in our time.
The Catholic Church, while still indefectible, indestructible, ever pure, untainted by heresy, ever the spotless Bride, is in eclipse, and is reduced to a much smaller number of Faithful than we have been used to in the history of Christendom. This extremely unusual situation that God has permitted for His own purposes is the reason why it is difficult to accept.
With the benefit of 50 year’s hindsight, we can see what has unfolded from the bad seed. But in 1966, it was still mostly hidden, and only starting to manifest itself. It was still a full 3 years before he signed the Intervention, which could only be endorsed by someone who had the Faith.
You forgot guns, hold onto your guns! 😉
Some things are just too obvious to mention. 😉
Pius XII only defined the form for the traditional Roman rite, not for the Eastern Rites, or for a new rite. Therefore, the new form of ordinations must be judged the same way that eastern rite forms are judged.
He said that the form must mention both the Order being conferred and the grace of the Holy Ghost.
The 1968 Paul VI rite of episcopal consecration does not mention both. The term “governing Spirit” is ambiguous; it either means the Order of the Episcopate or the grace of the Holy Ghost.
The translators themselves did not even know what it meant, but according to what Pius XII defined and taught as necessary, it does not meet the criteria for validity.
All you have to do is look it up and see for yourself.
You speak the truth. I know adults at my former New Order parish that have never heard of V2, and they’re in their 40’s.
Far more sadly, and I mean this, these exact same adults have no idea Who it is inside the Tabernacle.
When I begged for kneelers to be placed in front of the casted-off-to-the-side-and-neglected-waist-high Tabernacle, one woman finally asked me, “Why do you keep saying we need kneelers there? What is so important?”
I said, “Jesus is there, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity!”
She said, “Oh….”, with a look of total confusion. And then she looked sad. She’s not a bad or dumb woman, just poorly catechized, failed by a lost Church.
The French Revolution In The Church !!! Its All There Folks !!!
Liberty = Religious Freedom
Equality = Ecumenism
Fraternity = Collegiality
Mr. Verecchio notes that Cardinal Ottaviani singled out the following as a baleful result of Vatican II’s interpretation and implementation:
“The ordinary Magisterium of the Church, particularly that of the Roman Pontiff, is sometimes neglected and diminished, until it is relegated almost to the sphere of a mere opinion.”
Just so. Yet Mr. Verecchio then exercises no hesitation whatsoever in his own rejection of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church – precisely in the form of Amoris Laetitia.
The inconsistency is glaring, and its ultimate implication is that Tradition and Authority as defined by the Catholic Church are incompatible.
You call yourself “The Papal Subject.” Yet, if you reject Amoris Laetitia, as you probably do, then you are as little a “Papal Subject” as is (for example) Charles Curran, who famously rejected Humanae vitae.
Dear RH–Please define the term “Revisionist Historian”. Are you revising (changing/altering) history to meet your own ends?
May I ask why you think it is wrong for Mr. Verecchio to express his agreement with the President of the Polish Bishops’ Conference?
” Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki, issued a statement following a closed door, “no speeches” meeting of the Polish bishops with Pope Francis, who had just arrived in Krakow for World Youth Day. In the statement, Archbishop Gadecki said that giving communion could not be allowed even after a period of pastoral discernment, as Pope Francis seems to support. He reconfirmed constant Church teaching that if remarried divorcees had entered into a valid first marriage, they cannot receive the Eucharist unless they choose not to express their love for one another in conjugal union.
“This [communion for divorced and remarried] cannot be solved in a confessional box in two minutes or even a couple of years.” the archbishop told reporters in a press briefing.
The bishops were merely upholding the teachings of Christ on marriage, “what God has joined together…” and 2,000 years of Magisterial agreement with it, including the Council of Trent on the indissolubility of Marriage, and more recently, St. John Paul II’s affirmation that Communion cannot be given to the divorced, non-annulled-remarried until they repent of their sin and cease to commit it, is a very respectful treatment of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, is it not?
We are obligated to instruct the ignorant by the Spiritual works of mercy.
I would add that there are many other instances in which Mr. V. and other faithful Catholics have voiced opinions regarding such things as the errors of Vatican II, example Nostra Aetate’s concept that we worship the same God as the Muslims. There too, he is in full agreement with the Magisteriums of the past and present, which have not wavered from the teachings of Christ.
In fact, Cardinal Burke contradicted the ordinary magisterium of Francis again last week, in an interview about his new book entitled “Hope for the World, To Unite all things in Christ”
It is “highly questionable” to say Catholics and Muslims worship the same God and Islam is a religion of peace”
also responding to a question about whether Catholics and Muslims worship the same God and whether Catholics are bound to believe Vatican II’s definition of Islam.
“Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on the Catholic Church’s relationship with other religions, “is not a dogmatic document,” .
“I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshiping the same God,” said Burke. “To say that we all believe in love is simply not correct.”
“Everything that I’ve said about Islam, including especially what’s in the book, is based on my own studies of the texts of Islam and also of their commentators,” the cardinal said. The religious relativism that equates Catholic and Muslim teaching on the nature of God doesn’t “respect the truth” about what each religion teaches, he said. “This is not helpful.”
“Let’s examine carefully what Islam is and what our Christian faith teaches us,” said Burke, because they’re not the same thing.
“Nothing has changed in the Islamic agenda from prior times in which our ancestors” had to defend Christendom from Muslim attacks, Burke said. “They saw that Islam was attacking sacred truth.”
I’m sorry. I didn’t go back to the previous post and respond to your question but have now read it.
Who is Maurice Pliny?
I am aware that Dr. Coomaraswamy was very critical of the reforms in Vatican II. He was particularly critical of the Novus Ordo. Since I cannot provide the link to his personal correspondence, I will simply provide the opening paragraphs to it which explain it.
Dr. Coomaraswamy explains that “this correspondence which took place some 20 years ago represents a debate between myself and Mother Theresa. She and I had a long and intimate relationship dating back to the fifties when we met in India, where I had the privilege of working with her in Calcutta. Subsequent to that, I had cared for her and her nuns as a physician and surgeon in New York City, and indeed had operated upon her. She had accepted my 8 year old daughter who was dying of leukemia into her order and frequently visited at my home. In addition, my wife, an attorney, acted as her lawyer in the United States for many years.
Mother Theresa had taken me to task for not following the pope and for insisting on attending the traditional rites of the Church. Her initial letter in which she stated I was turning my back on Jesus led to this correspondence. In point of fact, she admitted that she was ill prepared to debate the issues with me, and said she would get someone in Rome to explain things to me in a proper manner. It was our understanding that the results would be published. If I was wrong and shown to be wrong, this could only lead to great good as the issues discussed were creating problems for many Catholics throughout the world. If I was correct, however, then again, the publishing of such a debate could only serve to defend the truth. At the end of this debate Mother Theresa said that she did not want the material published, and indeed said that if I went ahead and published it, our friendship would be at an end. I have respected her request as long as she was alive. However, now that she had gone on to better things, that restriction no longer holds.”
Just following in the steps of his predecessor’s.
Pope John XXIII spoke of a one world community which “should be under a public authority, having world-wide power and endowed with the proper means for the attainment of its objective, which is the universal common good.”
The diabolical disorientation was on full display when Pope Paul VI, addressing the United Nations stated: “It is your task here to proclaim the basic rights and duties of man, his dignity and liberty, and above all his religious liberty. We are conscious that you are the interpreters of all that is paramount in human wisdom. We would almost say: of its sacred character. The people turn to the United Nations as their last hope of peace and concord…The goals of the United Nations are the ideal that mankind has dreamed of in its journey through history. We would venture to call it the world’s greatest hope – for it is the reflection of God’s design – a design transcendent and full of love – for the progress of human society on earth; a reflection in which we can see the Gospel message, something from heaven come down to earth.”
Continuing on with diabolical disorientation, Pope John Paul II was even more laudatory towards the United Nations in his address in 1979 (never once mentioning the name of Jesus the Christ) but stated that “the governments of the world must unite in a movement that one hopes will be progressive and continuous, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and other international and juridical instruments are endeavoring to create general awareness of the dignity of the human being…the right of freedom of though, conscience and religion, and the right to manifest one’s religion either individually or in community, in public and in private.”
The Declaration of Human Rights is the same as that of the French Revolution as Cardinal Pie pointed out “the declaration of the Rights of Man are a denial of the Rights of Christ.”
There’s just no place like home, and frankly, no where else to go or to hide.We, here, are somewhat aware of the evil men, these instruments of the devil, working within The Catholic Church- just trying to destroy Her. All I could say is Our Lady of Good Success wasn’t kidding. Just stay close to her-extremely close. She will end this crisis within the Church and promised a Complete Restoration! I will be there, through the Grace and Mercy of God. I will be there to witness My I mmaculate Mother’s Feet trample that old serpent. How often I have gazed upon so many wonderfully Catholic statues depicting the scenario which will be ours to finally witness! I shall not miss it! Why would any Catholic? This will be a Most Amazing Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart! She has promised us. Remember Fatima? How could ANYONE want to leave now? This is our Faith! This is what we’ve been waiting for! Hang on to your Rosary. God, has allowed this bunker, The Refuge of His Mother’s Immaculate Heart, within the bosom of The Catholic Church!
What you say here merely illustrates that the Polish bishops are just as blatant as Louie Verecchio in running afoul of Cardinal Ottaviani’s entirely justified requirement that they simply submit obediently to Pope Francis’s Magisterium.
If there is a contradiction between Pope Francis and earlier Church teaching, that is merely evidence that the Catholic Magisterium is not unchanging, divinely guaranteed, etc., etc., in the first place.
In Roman Catholicism, Tradition and Authority contradict one another. The response of the Polish bishops, Louie Verecchio, etc., to Amoris Laetitia is just one example of many that makes this contradicition glaringly manifest.
The ancient Churches of the East do not have this problem, and I recommend an examination of their views of Tradition to the serious consideration of every reader of this blog.
Thank you for this.
As for Vatican II, insofar as any of its decrees were clearly approved and promulgated by Pope Paul VI, both types of contradiction cited above also apply to this case:
1) Insofar as the irrevocable doctrines Vatican II manifestly contradict the dogmas of earlier ecumenical councils, the contradictions point up the false and non-divine nature of Catholic teaching authority.
2) Insofar as Pope Paul VI approved and promulgated such contradictory dogmas, one is running afoul of Cardinal Ottaviani’s counsel, and also running headlong into the contradiction in Catholicism between Authority and Tradition.
Yes and remember that the Novus Ordo people have the Rosary also.
Again, the ancient churches of the East do not have this problem. None of them have an infallible supreme Authority that could possibly create the kinds of contradictions that are rampant in the Catholic doctrinal edifice.
The Novus Ordo is clearly a new rite from the Latin Roman rite. Therefore, Pius’ XII definition of the form does not apply. The Novus Ordo is for more different from the Roman Eite than Eastern rites are from it.
“If there is a contradiction between Pope Francis and earlier Church teaching, that is merely evidence that the Catholic Magisterium is not unchanging, divinely guaranteed, etc., etc., in the first place.”
Come on, man. Open your eyes.
We owe obedience to the unchanging Truth because Our Lord IS truth, and our first duty is always to Him.
Frances is no exception in owing that obedience.
Take the errors of Amoris for example:
Dogma is clear on Marriage being indissoluble.
Francis tries to give his personal permission to go against it.
It’s a no-brainer. He’s not just going against past magisteriums, he’s going against God.
We’re waiting for him to be ousted.
Ex Cathedra declarations are infallible, not Councils that specifically claim NOT to be dogmatic, but only pastoral.
And not opinions of left-wing commies from Argentina whom this Pope frequently employs to write his stuff for him.
There is no contradiction between the Authority (God) in the Catholic Church, and the Tradition handed down from the Apostles. THAT’s how we puny little lay people can still go by our “rightly formed consciences” in determining right from wrong on all these issues.
A 7 year old could do it.
The Eastern Churches will one day return to the fold, because they will realize that they have strayed from truth –precisely because they did not believe God had guaranteed it Himself in all dogmatic statements declared by true popes.
You’re peddling your lack of Faith here, and I’m sorry to see it.
I hope God blesses you with a more common-sense approach to truth, so you can be at peace in the one true Church, as we go through this distressful time foretold by Him.
You’re right that anyone can pick up a Rosary, so it’s not a sure sign that they’re on track about their beliefs.
But it’s certain that God will bless any sincere seeker of Truth with Divine assistance, in the end, and Our Lady will assist those who are truly devoted to her.
Yes. I was born and raised Novus Ordo through no fault of my own. I attend novus ordo every Sunday, Holy Days and some weekdays. I am not able to attend Latin Mass. Yes, you are correct. I do have the Rosary. I say the Rosary every day, and through Gods Mercy am humbly learning what it means to be Catholic. God is Good to me and has given me so much even though I have only know life and only have existed during this present crisis within Our Church, which Our Lady of Good Success prophesied about.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
Sorry, it appears I mixed your comment up at the end there with someone else’s regarding the Rosary.
I also meant to point out the error of the Easter Church in allowing a divorce and remarriage, contrary to dogma.
We’ll make it through this, by trusting God’s Word. The Book of Revelations gives sound advice and repeatedly: Persevere to the end. I read that Mother Mariana de Jesus, agreed to postpone entering heaven, in order to come back from death to life and suffer for the Church of our times. What kind of ingrates would we be, if , knowing that, we don’t show our appreciation by offering what we can for our own?
Keep the Faith, and keep sharing it. You’re helping people, I’m sure.
Yes. Mother Marianna was a victim soul for our time. She did this for us, who remain in the Bosom of Our Catholic Church as She undergoes terrible persecutions in this crisis. I am not leaving Her, but staying close to Our Mother.
Basically, I’m a little nobody following orders from Our Lady of Fatima. I have made 5 First Saturdays and have received Our Lord there in reparation for the offenses against Her Immaculate Heart. I am in the midst of 5 more First Saturdays. All of these I have made were at novus ordo masses. It’s all I got. That is maybe why she said to receive”Communion” on the 5 First Saturdays. She wouldn’t tell us to do this if it were so impossible. Faith!
NO AUTHORITY HAS THE RIGHT TO COMMAND UNLESS IN COMMANDING IT IS ITSELF OBEYING. Authority can command obedience only when its act or command is an act of obedience.” Obedience is a moral virtue. Faith Hope and Charity are theological virtues. As such they are of a higher value than obedience. Since Vatican II the faithful have found themselves in the difficult position of choosing between the centuries-old teaching and discipline of the Church and the commands of the post-Conciliar hierarchy. When such a conflict occurs, the faithful have the constant teaching of the Church to warrant their adherence to the former. In this case, we should have to repeat the words of St. Peter: ‘We ought to obey God rather than man'”(Acts 5:29)
Are you saying that if were to evaluate the 1968 rite in light of Sacramentum Ordinis, it would be invalid?
Did Paul VI say that the new rite is not the Roman Rite?
What’s made it even harder for the faithful is that we’re now into decades of unsound catechesis transmitted by modernist with penchants for subterfuge – painting gray areas where none exist and using the language of double-speak (giving novel meanings to age-old terms).
Even those who sense something is very wrong, often don’t know where to turn for reliable information and trustworthy teachers. And until they get better informed about the truths we hold so dear, AND about the enemies within , they stay prone to more error, and/or loss of Faith. Look at all the comments here from people who are either grateful to have come through it, or are still disheartened and bitter about being robbed of their heritage, and searching for answers. (Been there/done that)
It’s such a relief to have access to so many good traditional materials, and someone like Mr. V. to give us a heads-up and links to the best of them.
The name I use here has two meanings, just as the term “governing Spirit” in Paul VI’s new rite of episcopal consecration has (at least) two meanings.
1st meaning: I am a papal subject, because I am a Catholic. If there was a Pope, I would be happily subject to him.
2nd meaning: The papal subject i.e. the subject or issue of the Papacy in our time is a great mystery, and the resolution to the problem of the greatest crisis in the history of the Church lies in going to the heart of the matter.
The best explanation is that the cause of the crisis, the attempted destruction of the Four Marks of the Church, came directly from a supposed Pope, and has been carried on and promoted by successive claimaints to St Peter’s Chair. Therefore they cannot be true Popes, because they are teaching heresy and promoting apostasy, and do not profess the true Faith.
When the pioneer traditionalist Patrick Henry Omlor heard that very speech of Paul VI to the UN on the television in 1965, he said to his wife, “That man cannot possibly be the Pope”.
Speaking of Catholic links, and today, being the Feast of the Nativity of Mary —I just learned two facts about women that relate to Our Blessed Lady, and add more richness to the explanations of her immaculate conception.
1. Women carry all the eggs they will ever have, from early in their fetal development onward. So Mary had the egg with 23 of Our Lord’s chromosomes IN her, from the time she was a fetus in her mother’s womb until God miraculously added the other 23 on the day of the Incarnation.
2. A child’s full DNA is transmitted to the mother through the placenta while in the womb; and the mother then carries this part of her child around in her bloodstream-circulating through her heart, FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. (It’s been scientifically demonstrated that women who have given birth to sons, then have the Y chromosome in their blood from then on. )
So she was the New Ark, long before the Annunciation. I find that fascinating. The full article can be found here:
Pope Pius XII said in Sacramentum Ordinis that “the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments, that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.”
If Sacramentum Ordinis applied, then I think the episcopate consecration would be invalid and the priestly ordination would be doubtful (but I think still valid). Paul VI said the Novus Ordo was a new rite of mass. Novus Ordo means new missal. However, I do not care what he said concerning this subject. You would have to be blind, death, and dumb or willfully stupid to think the Novus Ordo is the same rite as the Mass of all Time. The Old Mass has far more in common with Eastern Rites.
I don’t think the Novus Ordo has anything to do with Catholicism, and actually causes people to lose their Faith.
But if you accept Paul VI as a true and valid Pope, and not a wretched, godless impostor, then it doesn’t matter what I say, or about what you say, but what Paul VI said. As long as you hold him to be Pope, then he has the final say on the matter, and not even Fr Hesse can match his authority.
Amen. The Magisterium is necessarily bound by the Deposit of Faith – it does not have any power or authority to deny it or purport to change it, to add to or subtract from it. It’s authority is circumscribed by its mission to defend, uphold and teach the unchangeable Faith as given to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles.
As you learn more about what it means to be Catholic, you will wean yourself off of the Novus Ordo Mass. The Ten Commandments require that you keep the Sabbath holy. It is the Church that tells you the best way to do that is by going to Holy Mass. If the Church does not provide you with a Catholic Mass, it is the Church’s fault and not yours.
When you come to that point, you will stay at home and pray an additional Rosary, take your Missal and read the Epistle and the Gospel for that Sunday, etc. A Catholic is not allowed to approach a doubtful Sacrament, which is the definition of a Novus Ordo Mass. Once a year you will be able to travel to an SSPX Chapel and receive a valid Communion.