With Cotton Candy Catholics throughout the world gushing sentimental on this the “Feast Day” of John Paul the Great Ecumenist, it occurs to me that a little reminiscence isn’t necessarily a bad thing. So, let’s have at it, shall we…
In his inaugural encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, John Paul II set forth the principles that would guide his long tenure as head of the conciliar church, saying:
Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council…
These words constitute the foundation upon which, not only his personal reign would be constructed, but also the entire church-of-man in Rome – the same presently leading souls to Hell under the headship of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
In Redemptor Hominis, the “polish pope” was telling us plainly and without apology that Vatican Council II is precisely what the revolutionaries have always said that it is, a New Pentecost; it is the birth of a new church, one “quite unknown previously.”
As Santo Subito Catholics simultaneously sing the praises of John Paul II and wring their collective hands over PachamamaCon, as if the latter represents a wholesale novelty, they may wish to consider the declaration made by Cardinal Hummes just the other day.
“The Synod,” he said, “is a fruit of the Second Vatican Council.” [See HERE for example]
Let there be no doubt that he is entirely correct. In other words, the Synod on the Amazon has the same “deep roots” as those of John Paul II, both drawing energy not from Christ, but rather from the conciliar church’s new awareness of its raison d’être.
The great divide between the “awareness” of this new church and that of the Catholic Church is obvious to anyone who cares to make note of how the preponderance of modern day (conciliar) churchmen, Bishops of Rome most especially, view their mission.
Though conservatives often lament the near singular focus of “Francis” (as he is known and adored by enemies of Mother Church worldwide) on matters temporal, today would be a good day to remind them that the problem did not begin with Bergoglio.
In a letter to the United Nations in 2003, John Paul II wrote:
The economically poorest countries — facing the constant worry of decreasing levels of food production and availability, and affected by the deterioration of agricultural and forest ecosystems — are often forced to give priority to the intensive cultivation of lands … our attention needs to focus on concrete actions aimed at safeguarding the traditional wisdom of indigenous peoples … because of the failure to safeguard biodiversity or, in certain cases, because of the destruction of forest habitats and the uncontrolled exploitation of fishing resources.
NB: Long before the so-called pontificate of Francis (to quote Fr. Nicholas Gruner) came to focus its “pontifical” energies on such passing things as ecosystems, bio-diversity, forest habitats, fishing resources and the wisdom of indigenous peoples, John Paul II had been there and done that. In fact, he was green way before green was cool.
As for the Argentinian? He’s just following in the Polish guy’s footsteps.
Yes, but while Francis is pleased to be green, John Paul II was Marian blue! In fact, the former even said that Mary was tempted at the Cross to accuse God of being a liar!
Most, it seems, have forgotten that Francis claimed recourse for this blasphemous idea, and not without merit, to the encyclical of John Paul II Redemptoris Mater, which states:
At that moment [the Annunciation] Mary had also heard the words: “He will be great…and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Lk. 1:32-33). And now, standing at the foot of the Cross, Mary is the witness, humanly speaking, of the complete negation of these words. (RM 18)
As detailed HERE, there was no “complete negation” on the Cross, most especially “humanly speaking” inasmuch as the Kingship of Christ belongs to Him “as man in the strict and proper sense” (cf Quas Primas), something Our Lord would pass through death in order to receive.
So, those looking for someone to blame for the initial suggestion that Our Lady may have understood that God reneged on His promises need look no further than Papa Totus Tuus himself. Also, let us not forget that it was John Paul II who oversaw the alleged release of the Third Secret of Fatima in the year 2000, which even the likes of neo-con hero Cardinal Burke now publicly recognizes as less than complete. So much for Marian blue.
Yes, but Francis treats the Body and Blood of her Son in the Blessed Sacrament as if it is just a piece of bread!
Indeed he does, and guess what: So too does the 1983 Code of Canon Law – the conciliar version promulgated by none other than… you got it, John Paul II.
Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) states that a Protestant (e.g., a grape juice drinking / sourdough bread eating Methodist) can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church if the diocesan bishop approves, and if he or she “cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it.” (ibid.)
Think about what you just read: The Code of Canon Law promulgated by the conciliar “saint” of the day actually equates the snacks that are handed out in the heretical communities (“it”) with the Most Holy Eucharist!
But, Francis encouraged Muslims to cling to their false religion, and even joined that Muslim cleric in declaring that God wills the diversity of religions!
Yes, he did, but nearly two decades before that John Paul II publicly prayed, “May St. John Baptist protect Islam!” Roughly one year prior, he stood in the Vatican before a delegation of Muslims and venerated with a kiss the Islamic blasphemous book of lies known as the Qur’an.
As for religious diversity, Assisi I and II. Need I say more?
But, but, Francis ordered a change to the Catechism so that it now says “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”
Let us not forget that it was John Paul II who once famously told the newly minted Bishop DiNardo in 1988, “Remember, bishop, its all about the human person.”
Seven years later, writing in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, he would put his money where his mouth is in the matter of capital punishment by eliminating entirely any reference to retributive justice in light of the Divine Law:
Even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defense” on the part of society … modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.
This language would later be included in a revision of the conciliar Catechism and become part of newchurch’s global crusade against the death penalty in all cases.
But Francis knew all about McCarrick and turned a blind eye!
Yes, and so too did John Paul II.
James Grein, Uncle Ted’s longtime victim, claims that he personally reported the abuse to John Paul II during a private audience and he did nothing about it. “He blessed me. He put his hands on my head. He dismissed me,” Grein recently told reporters.
We could go on with this exercise all day long, but at this the point has presumably been made. So, let’s conclude our remembrance of Karol via Jorge by looking at the beginning of each man’s reign of terror.
Upon being introduced to the world as John Paul II on October 16, 1978, Karol Wojtyla said to the crowd gathered in St. Peter’s Square:
And now the most eminent Cardinals have called a new Bishop of Rome. They have called him from a distant country…
Nearly there-and-a-half decades later, Jorge Bergoglio, upon being introduced to the world as Francis on March 13, 2013, said to the crowd gathered in St. Peter’s Square:
You all know that the duty of the Conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother Cardinals have come almost to the ends of the Earth to get him, but here we are.
Plagiarize much, Jorge? Evidently, he was keen to signal to the St. Gallen mafia – the group that conspired to put him on that balcony – that he knew his mission well and he was prepared to carry it out; namely, to step over Benedict XVI so as to pick up where Karol left off. Here we are, indeed.
Comments (24)
Comments are closed.
This was also the man who proclaimed that the ‘new truth, indeed, the ultimate and definitive truth about man’ is ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Yes, he actually said this in his inaugural homily in 1978. It’s on the Vatican website. That’s the truth about man: You are the Christ. I thought that was the truth about Christ.
Satan’s own.
Thess Ch 2
And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: … [2] That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. … [3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, … [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. … [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
[3] “The man of sin”: Here must be meant some particular man*, as is evident from the frequent repetition of the Greek article: ‘the man of sin, ‘the son of perdition, ‘the adversary or opposer. It agrees to the wicked and great ANTICHRIST, who will come before the end of the world.
[Note: *”Some particular man”, or MEN?”]
“Evidently, he was keen to signal to the St. Gallen mafia – the group that conspired to put him on that balcony – that he knew his mission well and he was prepared to carry it out; namely, to step over Benedict XVI so as to pick up where Karol left off. ”
Again, as if Benedict XVI gets a free pass. Louie, are you sure you’re not a benevacantist?
St. John Paul II–Patron Saint of Heretics and Perverts
Francis has insulted conservative Catholics, that’s why he cannot break the 1st commandment etc. but John Paul II could!
John Paul II said Jews could go to heaven without converting to the Catholic faith. Francis indirectly condemned the Jews with the Catholics. The only way the Jews could go from 12 million before WWII to 6 million after WWII to 14 million in 1974 is to either breed like rabbits, or proselytize! Both are condemned sins as pontificated by Francis!
I wonder how many SSPXers and other R&Rers remembered to invoked JPII intercession at their Mass today or even said one in his honor. Oh that’s right they can decide which “popes” were “saints” and which ones were not despite what their own church declares.
Hello again mothermostforgiving,
And of course, “Satan’s own”,——————church. It is utterly imperative that we arrange contingent realities in their proper order of relationship, yes. Councils do not beget churches, rather, churches beget councils. The object of a church is its council, in perfect contradistinction to the object of a council being its church. Amen. The Son of God made true Man established firstly His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. His Church then caused to be as Her objects, holy Ecumenical Councils, yes. The Church is the subject, while Her holy Councils remain then as Her objects, and the reverse simply cannot be true, as objects do not beget subjects. Amen.
Jesus the Christ commanded, “You are either with Me or you are against Me.” There is no, “middle ground”, false church thus, particularly as one that all but perfectly mimics as it mocks, the One true Church established by God. As this false church is in perfect opposition to The Christ’s Church and as that which is opposed to Christ is antichrist, this false church then can only be the false church of the Antichrist. Amen. So again mothermostforgiving, who started this false church and when? This church which pays homage to Antichrist as it opposes Jesus the Christ. Antichrist, the one who was prophesied to place himself in the, “temple”, as though he was God. Amen. This false church desolate of all things established by The Christ for His Church: His Vicar, His Sacraments, and His Gospel. This false church has its own false vicars, false sacraments, and false gospel. Amen. Perfectly opposed to the true, as Antichrist. Amen. Who started this church mmf and when. God bless you and yours’. In caritas.
…and his name starts with a “P”.
“Councils do not beget churches, rather, churches beget councils.”
But the conciliarists talk of nothing but “THE COUNCIL!” That is their god; that is their new religion.
“…who started this false church and when?”
After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Talmudic efforts began in earnest. They continued throughout the ensuing centuries and, because the Talmud’s Christ-hating devotees swore allegiance to Lucifer as their “deliverer,” the Jews increasingly gained power over the world—chiefly by controlling the money supply (a phenomenon which we see continuing to this day). The apex of that rise to power, I would have to say, occurred with the convening of Vatican II. It was at that point that they had, after decades of concerted efforts to infiltrate the Catholic Church, their arch-enemy, succeeded in finally stepping over the one obstacle to their quest for world domination. Even though Roncalli called the council, and even though Montini led that council, Karol Wojtyla, aka “John Paul II,” was THE ONE to hand the Jews what the wanted on a silver platter during the quarter-century of his “pontificate.” And he did. His reward was his apotheosis (something he apparently desired from his youth), and there is to this day no shortage of worshippers of him in the Novus Order church. But that won’t last forever. He was not God—he was a fool.
It is interesting that the “Council” was announced in January of 1959, 75 years after the vision of Pope Leo XIII in the Sanctuary (“75-100 years”).
You make a good point here. They recognize Padre Pio as a saint, even though he’s been canonized under the new rules, but will not raise him to the altar.
By accepting the 1983 code of canon law, this has caused many problems for them. People will always default to the new, easier rules when put in a difficult position.
Last Ascension Thursday, there was a debate on St. Mary’s Facebook page (yes, that exists) about whether or not Thursday was actually a holy day of obligation because in the NO, they roll the obligation to the following Sunday. So, the R&R position causes the sspx faithful to doubt and causes confusion where there shouldn’t be any if they would just hold firm to the pre-conciliar traditions. Same with days of fast & abstinence, eucharistic fast etc. I see many sspxers default to the NO rules. What’s traditional about that?
In caritas, did you receive my prior query from the article “Did Vatican II rebels attack Ott’s ‘Fundamentals’ directly?” about starting your own blog? Unlike others, I mean this in a complimentary manner and would be willing to support it.
Good evening mothermostforgiving,
Your historical perspective is well taken. It is not the history though, as it relates to the movement over the centuries of Lucifer, by proxy through his human slaves, that is in question here. We have Biblical prophecy, yes. We have the specific time and place which Almighty God has commanded into eternity, as to precisely when this is to be fulfilled and of course. Amen. There is only one time and one place by one man, when prophesy is fulfilled, as in Bethlehem for the Nativity of the God Man. Amen. Once fulfilled, Almighty God, in the Person of The Christ, simply commands us to know this. Period and end. Our salvation depends upon it, as He admonished His disciples for not knowing the signs of the prophetic time in which they lived. Amen.
It does not matter what the so called, “conciliarists”, talk of as their god. They have no ability to alter reality as it indeed is. Period and end. Churches beget councils, councils cannot beget churches, as councils are the object of the church, as an instrument of direction for the church. The men gathered in council are the representatives of the church whose council it is, yes and of course. So again, whose church is this which held the so called, “second vatican council” (sm case intended)? The council was called by a man. Who was this man, known as Angelo Roncalli, an apostate to the true Faith, as so called false pope John XXIII? Remember the teaching of the Angelic Doctor as it relates to reality, truth, and deception. Deception holds the place of truth in the intellect of the deceived. Amen. It doesn’t matter what the deceived say about this nor certainly what they choose to believe, in their deception, as they do not receive the grace of God to see. Period and end. That is the Apostle speaking in 2 Thess 2, not this miserable wretch writing to you. Truth is, “reality as it is”, and not as it may appear to be to the deceived, who are on their way to Hell for all eternity, as the Apostle warned us, about all those who would receive, “the operation of error to believe lying”. Amen. God bless and keep you. In caritas.
Hello again SEDEVCT,
I did read you query of me. Time is of the essence as we live the desolation of Antichrist. As a matter deFide, the Early Church Fathers forewarned us of this time. As with all prophesy, there can only be one fulfillment, as to suggest otherwise is heresy. They taught in unanimity that when the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would fail, thus we know that it would fail and with the certitude of the divine and Catholic Faith, this would be the time of the reign of Antichrist. Amen. Anyone who denies this teaching, simply cannot be Catholic, as they cannot hold the divine and Catholic Faith, as taught in the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. That is, any iota of any matter deFide rejected, in that singular rejection, one rejects the entire faith, deFide, outside the Church thus, where no salvation is found. Amen. It cannot matter what any miserable human creature opines about reality as it is, truth thus. One either receives the grace of the Almighty Triune Godhead to see the reality as it is, or one does not, and woe unto him. Amen. What we know as inerrantly taught in the Holy Writ, as from the Mouth of God, in the Person of Jesus the Christ, is that when the Son of Man returns, all but all will not hold the divine and Catholic Faith, it will be as the time of Noe, and men’s hearts will have grown cold. Amen. Alleluia. God bless and keep you SEDEVCT. In caritas.
Excellent, In caritas. And God bless and keep YOU.
Well that’s the problem with recognizing the authority of the local ordinary.
When I used to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, they would always use the old holy days of obligation, but the new rules of fast and abstinence. It used to drive me insane.
Holy Week was all over the place, and each priest seemed to do it differently. Very few did the 1962 missal by the book. Most would use two missals at the altar – the 1962 one and a pre-55 one so they could add in whatever bits from the old rite that they personally liked. No one seemed to have a clue what was going on, especially the altar boys.
Also, when Mary MacKillop was “canonised” (“St Mary of the Cross”) the District Superior directed the SSPX chapels to sing a Te Deum in thanksgiving because it was the first “saint” of that country. But, a few years later, some laity had some concerns of her feast appearing in the Mass bulletin, and the clergy told them not to worry and that it wouldn’t be celebrated.
And they have the gall (pun intended) to label sedevacantists “protestant”.
Ah yes, the evil 1962 Missal, brought to us by the same “Spirit” as Vatican II…
I agree with you completely, in Caritas; however, there can be nothing wrong (if done within the parameters of Church law) with disseminating these truths on ones own venue. This is a truth that is rarely being stated anywhere. Fellow Catholics will be edified; and men of goodwill will have confirmation of the Truth. Scoffers, of course, will exist no matter where you go.
From your response, though, I gather that you are essentially saying ‘No’. But I do hope you will reconsider.
Perhaps I will to do it on my initiative.
On a lighter note, is your moniker taken from the encyclical Charitas, by Pope Pius VII?
Then there is the ridiculous situation that occurs when the sspx bishops decide to grant a “dispensation” from Friday abstinence, such as they do every year at the U.S. ordinations, because of the “hardships incurred while travelling” of the faithful. But, wait a minute, I thought they recognized the authority of the local ordinary – who probably doesn’t care one iota if meat is eaten on a Friday outside of Lent! Besides, doesn’t the sspx accept the 1983 code – which doesn’t require it anyway?! So, why the phony dispensation? Not to mention that the supplied jurisdiction of the Society bishops only covers administering the sacraments in a state of emergency. As far as I know, it doesn’t include granting dispensations. Pick a code a stick with it, SSPX. 1917 or 1983, what’s it going to be?
Hello SEDEVCT,
It is simply to remind perfectly miserable me why I’m writing, as Deus Caritas Est. Amen. Alleluia. In caritas.
That is my problem with the SSPX and why I could never accept their rationale for doing what they do. Who decides what is to be obeyed and what is to be resisted? The only Catholic response is to reject their claim to be called Catholic. Otherwise you must submit your will to their teaching, all of their teaching.
The nine priests who left in 1983 brought up this particular issue in their letter to Abp Lefebvre – see heading “5. Magisterial Authority” in their letter:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineLetter.pdf
If Abp Lefebvre had been a true leader he would have addressed this issue and the others in the letter. Instead, goaded by the then Fr Williamson and Fr Schmidberger, he threw a tantrum and expelled the nine priests. The result is that the SSPX continues on its merry way of being a law unto itself. The party line is more important than the Catholic faith and Catholic principles.