The Good Pope John XXIII... Blessed John XXIII, the Pope whose body is Incorruptible. He is the one who opened the Second Vatican Council.
-
I agree that Vatican Councils are part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The problem is that some of documents in Vatican II say things that are contrary to previous teaching Magisterium. So, what is a person to do safely? If there is a discrepancy, one must choose to follow what the Church has always taught, and what was taught by Popes who are canonized Saints. You can talk all you want about the "hermeneutics of continuity" in Vatican II, but face the facts! Vatican II was undeniably, at least in part, a hermeneutic of rupture. I am not going to reiterate what has already been written endlessly on this subject and which is easily available.
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[I agree that Vatican Councils are part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church.]
PRAISE THE LORD.
[The problem is that some of documents in Vatican II say things that are contrary to previous teaching Magisterium.]
NOT ALL THINGS TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH IS UNCHANGEABLE. ONLY DOGMAS AND SUBSTANCE OF THE FAITH ARE UNCHANGING. PRACTICES DEVELOPS AND ARE BEING CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE CHURCH IS "ONE AND THE SAME FOR ALL TIME" BUT SHE IS ALSO "SEMPER REFORMANDA" - IN CONSTANT PROCESS OF CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT. DEFINITELY THE PRACTICES AND LITURGY OF THE 18TH CENTURY ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE PRACTICES AND LITURGY OF THE 1ST CENTURY OF CHRISTIANITY BUT THE DOGMAS ARE THE SAME.
[So, what is a person to do safely?]
TO BE IN COMMUNION WITH PETER THE ROCK ON WHICH THE CHURCH IS FOUNDED AND THE ONE WHICH THE GATE OF HELL CAN NEVER OVERCOME. [cf. Matthew 16:18-19]
[If there is a discrepancy, one must choose to follow what the Church has always taught, and what was taught by Popes who are canonized Saints.]
THOSE POPES WHO ARE CANONIZED SAINTS ALSO CHANGED SOMETHING FROM THE PREVIOUS POPES WHO WERE ALSO CANONIZED SAINTS AND THE PREVIOUS POPE WHO WAS AN APOSTLE.
THERE IS NO DOGMA IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE THE SAME FROM POPE PIUS V ONWARD TILL KINGDOM COME.
[You can talk all you want about the "hermeneutics of continuity" in Vatican II, but face the facts! Vatican II was undeniably, at least in part, a hermeneutic of rupture.]
THE RUPTURE IS IN YOUR MIND NOT IN THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II.
[I am not going to reiterate what has already been written endlessly on this subject and which is easily available.]
YES, THE ACCUSATIONS OF RAPTURE HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY REFUTED AS WELL AND WE ARE NOT CONVINCED BY THE LIES OF THE SSPX ULTRA-TRADITIONALS AND OF SEDEVACANTISTS. NO WAY. YOU CANNOT LURE US TO YOUR POPELESS SOCIETY.
-
Fr, why do you hate SSPX so much? what lies did they say?
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
THEY ARE LIARS BECAUSE IN THE OFFICIAL STAND THEY CLAIM TO BE CATHOLICS, ASKING THE POPE TO BE MERCIFUL TO THEM AND TO REMOVED THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS OF THEIR BISHOPS YET IN REALITY, DOWN IN THE GRASSROOTS THEIR FOLLOWERS AND SUPPORTERS SUCH AS IN THE INTERNET OR IN PERSON ARE ALWAYS ATTACKING POPE PAUL VI, JOHN XXIII, JOHN PAUL THE GREAT AND BENEDICT XVI.
I AM TIRED HEARING THEIR ATTACKS AGAINST THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL, THEIR CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT MASONRY IN THE CHURCH WHICH MADE THEM WORST THAN DAN BROWN.
ENOUGH OF THEIR HYPOCRISY. THE HYPOCRISY THAT THEY HAVE MANIFESTED IN THE FORUMS, INTERNET EXCHANGES AND IN PERSON.
AS A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST I SAY: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH OF THESE LITURGICAL BASTARDS. IF THEY HATE ECUMENISM THEN, NO ECUMENISM THEN. LET US CALL THEM HERETICS AS THEY PREFER TO USE ON OTHERS WHO ARE DOING THE SAME AS THEY DID.
-
They claimed to be Catholics, so what made their claim false? Can you cite some links or references which states that they are directly attacking the pope? please dont use "sspx followers" as reference because they do not represent the sspx. i want an official sspx statements which says they are attacking the pope.
some if not all "sspx followers" (i must admint) are misguided. but that doesnt mean that sspx are attacking the pope if these "sspx followers" attacking the pope. These "sspx followers" might have influenced by some sedevacantist websites.
conspiracies about freemason in the church? i dont think it is theory. it is a fact. The Catholic Church being the bearer of truth is always and in perpetuity the target of the darkside. They cannot destroy the church from outside so their tactic is to destroy the church from within by invasion and inside job. for more information about Masons in the Church, http://catholic.cephasministry.com/masonlst.html
You Fr Abe, a servant of God, may you see the the real situation of the Church. May you see the devastating crisis in church not only in your area of responsibility but also the rest of the Catholic world, so that you may serve Him better.
Thank you.
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[They claimed to be Catholics, so what made their claim false?]
THEY ARE FALSE BECAUSE THEY CLAIMED TO BE CATHOLICS BUT THEY ARE NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE VICAR OF CHRIST. IF THAT IS NOT EVIL FOR YOU IT IS EVIL FOR CATHOLIC DOGMA... PRE-VATICAN II DOGMA IF YOU WANT TO USE THE TERM.
[Can you cite some links or references which states that they are directly attacking the pope?]
I ALREADY STATED THAT I CONSIDER THEM HYPOCRITES BECAUSE THEIR OFFICIAL STAND IS NOT MANIFESTED IN THEIR PERSONAL ACTIVITIES. I'M REFERRING TO ALMOST ALL SSPX SUPPORTERS THAT I PERSONALLY KNOW, HAVE TALKED TO OR HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES.
[please dont use "sspx followers" as reference because they do not represent the sspx.]
WHO REPRESENT THE SSPX? IF THESE 'SSPX FOLLOWERS' ARE ATTACKING OUR CATHOLIC FAITH IN PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE POPE IT IS OUR DUTY TO DEFEND THE CHURCH AND THE POPE AND THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AGAINST THEIR EVIL MALICE.
[i want an official sspx statements which says they are attacking the pope.]
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD ALL THE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OF SSPX FROM THE INTERNET AND SWALLOW ALL OF THEM IF YOU WANT. BUT, DON'T COMPEL ME TO JOIN IN YOUR INFATUATIONS WITH THEM. I'D RATHER VOMIT.
-
[some if not all "sspx followers" (i must admint) are misguided.]
REALLY? THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT. NOW YOU KNOW THAT SIMPLY ATTENDING TLM DOES NOT GIVE IMMUNITY FROM HERESY AND SCHISM AND DISOBEDIENCE TO THE HOLY FATHER.
IF THEY ARE MISGUIDED FELLAY SHOULD BE EXCOMMUNICATING THEM. BUT, HE IS SILENT. WHY? BECAUSE HE IS ENJOYING WHAT THEY ARE SAYING AGAINST THE POPES, AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND AGAINST THE BISHOPS. YOU DEMAND TO THE POPES TO BE STRICK AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE LIBERAL YET YOUR SSPX LEADERSHIP ARE DOING THE SAME TO THE ERRORS OF YOUR OWN KIND. VERY HYPOCRITICAL ISN'T IT?
[but that doesnt mean that sspx are attacking the pope if these "sspx followers" attacking the pope.]
IF THERE ARE SSPX FOLLOWERS ATTACKING THE POPE AND TOO MANY OF THEM IT MEANS THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE LEARNING FROM THE SSPX LEADERSHIP.
AS CATHOLICS WE WILL DEFEND THE POPE WITH OUR LIVES AND WITH ALL OUR STRENGTH. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ATTACKED TELL THEM TO BEHAVE.
[These "sspx followers" might have influenced by some sedevacantist websites.]
THESE SEDEVACANTISTS DEMONS ARE BEGOTTEN BY SSPX. THEY ARE YOUR OFFSHOOTS. THEY ARE BLOOD OF YOUR OWN BLOOD AND FLESH OF YOUR OWN BLESH, DOCTRINALLY, LITURGICALLY AND PASTORALLY. YOU BELONG TO THE SAME DEMON OF DISOBEDIENCE TO THE SEE OF PETER. THEY GOT THEIR DEMONIC SPIRIT FROM THE REBELLION OF LEFEBVRE.
[conspiracies about freemason in the church? i dont think it is theory. it is a fact.]
HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE FREE TO HALLUCINATE. IT IS EASY FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE SSPX IS INFILTRATED BY SATANISTS THAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BY FREEMASONS. SATAN AND LEFEBVRE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS IN COMMON. THEIR NAMES SOUNDS THE SAME: LUCIFER = LEFEBVRE AND BOTH FELL BECAUSE OF DISOBEDIENCE.
[The Catholic Church being the bearer of truth is always and in perpetuity the target of the darkside.]
SOME OF THAT DARKSIDE IS THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS, THE HERESY OF ARIUS, THE PROTEST OF LUTHER AND THE DISOBEDIENCE OF LEFEBVRE. THEY ARE ALL POSSESSED BY THE SAME DEMON.
SSPX IS A DARKSIDE IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
[They cannot destroy the church from outside so their tactic is to destroy the church from within by invasion and inside job.]
IT IS THE SSPX WHO IS DESTROYING THE CHURCH FROM WITHIN. YOU SIMPLY NEED ALIBIS TO TAKE THE BLAME ON YOURSELVES SO YOU CONCOCTED CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
[for more information about Masons in the Church, http://catholic.cephasministry.com/masonlst.html]
VERY NICE PRODUCTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION. YOUR WEBSITE IS SIMILAR TO THE BOOK OF DAN BROWN. THE SAME DEMON HAS GIVEN YOU SIMILAR CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
[You Fr Abe, a servant of God, may you see the the real situation of the Church.]
YEAH, THE REAL SITUATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THAT THE SSPX AND THE SEDEVACANTISTS ARE LIKE WORMS AND CANCER VIRUS INSIDE THE BODY OF CHRIST.
[May you see the devastating crisis in church not only in your area of responsibility but also the rest of the Catholic world, so that you may serve Him better.]
WE ARE SERVING THE CHURCH BETTER. THE SSPX ARE USELESS BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING NOTHING BUT ATTACKING THE PAULINE MASS AND TO SCRATCH THEIR BACKS.
THOSE WHO ARE RUNNING THE SCHOOLS, THE ORPHANAGES, THE LEPROSARIUMS, THE HOME FOR THE AGED AND THOSE GOING TO MISSIONS WITH THE POOREST OF THE POOR ARE LOVING THE MASS OF PAUL VI LIKE MOTHER TERESA AND SISTER LUCIA.
THE CHURCH IS ALWAYS IN CRISIS. THERE IS NEVER A YEAR THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT IN CRISIS. IN FACT, THE CRISIS DURING THE TIME OF POPE PIUS V WAS MORE TERRIBLE THAN NOW. BUT IN EVERY CRISIS, THE SOLUTION IS FIDELITY TO THE POPE 'NOT TREACHERY' AS LEFEBVRE DID.
[Thank you.]
THANKS BUT NO THANKS.
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
You are blind Fr. Look not only around you. Look outside the window. Open your mind and eyes. Let see in the next few years...
ReplyDeleteI asked you for reference please give me. If you cant provide, then stop your hypocrisy.
And please refute the links i give you:
http://catholic.cephasministry.com/masonlst.html
if you prove me wrong. I will swallow my pride. Im sure you did not read the site.
Fr, hindi lahat ng ayaw mo ay hindi totoo. Sometimes the truth hurts.
ReplyDeletethe problem of Vatican II is ESSENTIALLY doctrinal. (A) Alas, the Vatican II documents are indeed responsible for the "spirit" of Vatican II and its crazy aftermath. Their very ambiguity, recognized by E.M.J., let the craziness loose. (B) God is indeed with His Church, but He leaves His churchmen free to choose to do it great, but never fatal, damage (cf.Lk. XVIII, 8). (C) Thus the mass of Catholic bishops He let fall in the appalling Arian crisis of the fourth century. What happened once is happening again, only worse. (D) At an early stage in the post-Conciliar fight for Tradition, it may have been reasonable to appeal for Vatican II to be interpreted in the light of Tradition, but that stage is long past. The ambiguity's bitter fruits have long since proved that the subtly poisoned Conciliar documents cannot be salvaged.
ReplyDeleteThus (E) the Council is not Traditional, and the Rome-SSPX clash is ESSENTIALLY doctrinal, so (F) there is good reason to fear contamination, because of Vatican II's false doctrine -- it is leading souls to Hell. (G) Nor is there a schismatic mentality amongst (non-sedevacantist) Traditionalists, even though (H) the Church is in the thick of the worst emergency of her entire history. (I) But just as in the Arian crisis the few bishops who kept the Faith proved that the Church had not absolutely failed, so today the SSPX belongs to the Church and is keeping the Faith, without remotely pretending to replace, or to be on its own, the Church.
when, in all Church history, were her assembled bishops deliberately ambiguos? the ambiguity of Vatican II. When did churchmen ever resort to ambiguity unless it was to pave the way for heresy ? In Our Lord's Church, yes is to be yes, and no is to be no (Mt.V, 37).
Kyrie eleison.
[The problem is that some of documents in Vatican II say things that are contrary to previous teaching Magisterium.]
ReplyDeleteHey was it not Lefebvre one of the signatories along with Castromayer who signed the Vatican II documents? Take a look at this link where it shows he signed the "decree on religious liberty":
http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id19.html
(Father Abe will you be so kind to post the article written on this link as well as the picture in your blog? Thank you very much.)
I know Lefebvre claims that what he thought he signed was a just an "attendance sheet" at the council, but looking at the document where he signed, there were no indications or words that says "ATTENDANCE". He may not like the "declaration of Religious liberty" but hey, the fact remains unchanged: HE SIGNED THE APPROVAL SHEET and his signature was included TO THOSE BISHOPS WHO APPROVE THE DOCUMENT. POOR LEFBVRE, HE IS SO OLD AND CONFUSE TO THE POINT HE CANNOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ATTENDANCE SHEET AND APPROVAL SHEET.
Number 2, was it there an agreement of then Cardinal Ratzinger and Lefebvre for SSPX? See the full document on the link posted:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFLEFEB.HTM
let us take a look on the first five promises lefebvre made:
Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988
I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded:
1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.
2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.
3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.
Pay attention on number 3... aren't the SSPX should study the Vatican II INSTEAD OF REJECTING IT when they found it DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE WITH TRADITION?
SAD THING IS LEFEBVRE BROKE THIS AGREEMENT AND I WILL NOT GO WITH A MAN WHO HAS NO WORD OF HONOR...
number 4- Listen to the Invitation pope Benedict XVI to the SSPX on his general Audience:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzailD3LuTs
here is the official text of his message:
The second: in the Homily pronounced on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my Pontificate, I said that an "explicit" duty of the Pastor is the "call to unity", and commenting on the Gospel passage about the miraculous catch, I said: "although the fish were so many, the net was not torn". I then followed with these Gospel words: "Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn!". I continued, "But no we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised.... Do not allow your net to be torn, and help us to be servants of unity!" (Installation Mass, 24 April 2005).
Precisely in fulfillment of this service to unity, which qualifies my ministry as Successor to Peter in a specific way, I decided several days ago to grant the remission of the excommunication to which the four Bishops, ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a Papal mandate, were subject. I fulfilled this act of paternal compassion because these Bishops repeatedly manifested their active suffering for the situation in which they had found themselves. I HOPE THAT THIS GESTURE OF MINE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY AN EARNEST COMMITMENT ON THEIR BEHALF TO COMPLETE THE NECESSARY FURTHER STEPS TO ACHIEVE FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH, THUS WITNESSING TRUE FIDELITY TO, AND TRUE RECOGNITION OF, THE MAGESTERIUM AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL."
Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html
(Father Abe please post also this video in your blog as well as the text)... NOW TO ALL SSPX... HOW WILL YOU RESPOND TO THE CALL OF THE POPE IN ACCEPTING THE "TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL?"
REMEMBER-- SCHISM IS DEFINED AS "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him" AND An Ecumenical Council is an "exercise of the supreme magesterium" by the body bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter
[the problem of Vatican II is ESSENTIALLY doctrinal.]
ReplyDeleteVATICAN II HAS NO PROBLEM. IT IS THE SSPX WHO HAS A PROBLEM. HA, HA, HA... DON'T THROW ON OTHERS YOUR OWN PROBLEMS. VATICAN II OPENED AND CLOSED PEACEFULLY WITH LEFEBVRE SILENT DURING THE DEBATES AND HE HYPOCRITICALLY SIGNED THE DOCUMENTS. IT IS LEFEBVRE WHO CAUSED THE PROBLEM NOT VATICAN II.
[(A) Alas, the Vatican II documents are indeed responsible for the "spirit" of Vatican II and its crazy aftermath.]
IT IS LEFEBVRE WHO DIED INSANE AND SENILE. THERE IS NOTHING CRAZY IN THE AFTERMATH OF VATICAN II. PEOPLE ARE HAPPY THAT THE MASSES ARE TRANSLATED INTO VERNACULAR. THOSE WHO OPPOSE LIKE THE EXCOMMUNICATED TRAITOR LEFEBVRE ARE NOT EVEN 0.01 PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
[Their very ambiguity, recognized by E.M.J., let the craziness loose.]
IT IS LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX WHO ARE AMBIGUOUS. LOOK AT YOUR FOLLOWERS. YOU CANNOT EVEN AGREE ON A COMMON STAND. THERE ARE SEDEVACANTISTS, THERE ARE THOSE WHO ALLEGEDLY RECOGNIZE THE POPE AND THERE ARE THOSE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BE REUNITED WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. HA, HA, HA...
YOU ARE AMBIGIOUS BECAUSE EVEN MICHAEL JACKSON OR MICHAEL JORDAN YOU ARE INVOKING. IT IS THE SSPX WHO LET LOOSE THE CRAZINESS.
LOOK AT YOU. WHY ARE YOU ANONYMOUS? BECAUSE YOU ARE A COWARD. YOU WANT TO HIDE YOUR IDENTITY BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT SURE THAT YOUR POSITION WILL BE UPHELD BY YOUR OWN KINDS.
[(B) God is indeed with His Church, but He leaves His churchmen free to choose to do it great, but never fatal, damage (cf.Lk. XVIII, 8).]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT YOU JUST POSTED A READY-MADE MATERIAL HERE.
INDEED GOD IS IN HIS CHURCH. LEFEBVRE DIED EXCOMMUNICATED BY THE CHURCH, THEN LEFEBVRE IS NOT WITH GOD AND HIS CHURCH. REMEMBER YOUR SSPX INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS [OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION] IS ABSOLUTE. SO LEFEBVRE BY SSPX STANDARD IS IN HELL.
THE VATICAN II DIDN'T GIVE FATAL DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH BUT RATHER IT MADE THE MASS MORE ACCESSIBLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE TO THE PEOPLE. THAT IS GREAT. ONLY THE EVIL MALICE OF YOUR KIND LOOK AT IT AS EVIL.
THE LORD JESUS, FORTUNATELY, DIDN'T SPEAK LATIN. WHY? BECAUSE HE IS NOT AS STUPID AS THE SSPX.
[(C) Thus the mass of Catholic bishops He let fall in the appalling Arian crisis of the fourth century.]
BUT THE LORD GOD PRESERVED THE SEE OF PETER FROM ARIAN HERESY. NEVER DID ARIANISM ENTERED THE DOOR OF THE SEE OF PETER AND IT WAS AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL THAT DEFEATED THE ENEMY.
LEFEBVRE AND ARIUS HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON. THEY ARE BOTH DISOBEDIENCE TO THE DEFINITIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE MAGISTERIUM, THEY ARE DISOBEDIENT TO THE SEE OF PETER AND THEY REJECTED EACH AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. SO, ARIUS IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE EXCOMMUNICATED LEFEBVRE AND ARIANISM IS SIMILAR TO SSPX.
[What happened once is happening again, only worse.]
THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN YOUR MIND AS YOU ARE BECOMING DELUSIONAL.
[(D) At an early stage in the post-Conciliar fight for Tradition, it may have been reasonable to appeal for Vatican II to be interpreted in the light of Tradition, but that stage is long past.]
HA, HA, HA... EXCUSE ME. YOU ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR TRADITION YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR REBELLION. THE TRUE TRADITION IS DEFINITIVELY ENTRUSTED BY THE LORD TO ST. PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS THE POPE. IT IS THEY WHO ARE THE BEARER OF THE KEYS NOT THAT INSANE AND CRAZY, SENILE LEFEBVRE.
HA, HA, HA... IF FOR YOU INTERPRETING VATICAN II IN LIGHT OF TRADITION IS LONG PAST THEN SO BE IT. WE DON'T NEED YOU IN THE CHURCH. WE DON'T NEED LITURGICAL BASTARDS AND TREACHEROUS PARASITES LIKE YOU... YOU SEE, HOW HYPOCRITE YOU ARE. BERNARD FELLAY SENT POPE BENEDICT XVI A FORMAL REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION FOR THE FOUR BISHOPS AND TO HAVE A DIALOGUE IN ORDER TO STUDY VATICAN II TOGETHER. THEN HERE YOU ARE, PONTIFICATING THAT IT IS LONG PAST. HA, HA, HA...
YOU YOURSELF IS OPPOSING THE OFFICIAL STAND OF THE SSPX. HA, HA, HA...
[The ambiguity's bitter fruits have long since proved that the subtly poisoned Conciliar documents cannot be salvaged.]
HA, HA, HA... IT IS THE SSPX THAT CANNOT BE SALVAGED BECAUSE IT IS INFESTED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO HAS REJECTED ROME'S AUTHORITY.
THE CONCILIAR DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE SALVAGED, YES. BECAUSE WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO SALVAGED IT. IT IS PROTECTED BY THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE VIOLATED BY SCHISMATICS LIKE YOU.
[Thus (E) the Council is not Traditional,]
ReplyDeleteTHE COUNCIL IS TRADITIONAL AND TRULY CATHOLIC. THE SSPX IS SCHISMATIC AND HERETICAL.
IT IS NEVER STATED IN TRADITION THAT THE TRIDENTINE LATIN MASS IS THE ONLY MASS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND IT IS NOWHERE STATED IN TRADITION THAT LATIN IS THE ONLY LANGUAGE TO BE USED IN THE LITURGY.
[and the Rome-SSPX clash is ESSENTIALLY doctrinal,]
VERY GOOD. THAT DOCTRINE IS THE DOGMA OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE AS THE SUPREME PONTIFF AND VICAR OF CHRIST.
THE SSPX SATANICALLY REJECTED THAT DOGMA OF VATICAN I... TAKE NOTE... VATICAN I WHICH IS PRE-VATICAN II IN FAVOR OF THE CRAZY AND SENILE LEFEBVRE. LIKE THE FALLEN ANGELS YOU FOLLOWED THE REBELLIOUS LUCIFER THAN THE FAITHFUL ANGEL.
THANKS BE TO GOD, CARDINAL OTTAVIANI AND CARDINAL SIRI ARE NOT IDIOTS. THEY DIDN'T JOIN YOUR REBELLION AGAINST POPE PAUL VI.
[so (F) there is good reason to fear contamination, because of Vatican II's false doctrine --]
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VATICAN II's FALSE DOCTRINE BUT THERE IS ONLY SSPX's FALSE DOCTRINE THAT THE POPE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY BECAUSE THE TRUE REPOSITORY OF TRADITION IS NOW THE SSPX OR THE SOCIETY OF THE POPELESS.
[it is leading souls to Hell.]
SPEAKING OF HELL, I THINK IT IS LEFEBVRE WHO IS LANGUISHING IN HELL BECAUSE HE DIED UNREPENTANT FROM THE ABOMINABLE SIN FOR WHICH HE INCURRED IPSO FACTO EXCOMMUNICATION.
[(G) Nor is there a schismatic mentality amongst (non-sedevacantist) Traditionalists,]
HA, HA, HA... YEAH. IT IS LIKE A PROSTITUTE CLAIMING TO BE A VIRGIN OR LIKE A DEMON CLAIMING TO BE A FAITHFUL ANGEL. HA, HA, HA...
[even though (H) the Church is in the thick of the worst emergency of her entire history.]
HA, HA, HA... THE CHURCH IS NOT IN EMERGENCY. THE CHURCH IS LIVING NATURALLY IN A SINFUL WORLD. HER EMERGENCY IS EVANGELIZATION AND SALVATION BUT THE EMERGENCY OF YOUR KIND IS REBELLION.
[(I) But just as in the Arian crisis the few bishops who kept the Faith proved that the Church had not absolutely failed,]
HA, HA, HA... THOSE BISHOPS ARE THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. BECAUSE ST. ATHANASIUS AND HIS COMPANION BISHOPS REMAINED LOYAL TO THE BISHOP OF ROME AND THEY DIDN'T STUPIDLY FORMED A SOCIETY TO DISOBEY THE SEE OF PETER. HA, HA, HA...
[so today the SSPX belongs to the Church]
YOU BELONG TO THE DEVIL. THE ANTI-ARIAN BISHOPS DIDN'T FORM A SOCIETY SEPARATED AND DISOBEDIENT TO THE SEE OF PETER. HA, HA, HA... THE SSPX IS MORE IN COMMON WITH THE ARIANS. HA, HA, HA... BOTH ANTI-POPE AND ANTI-ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. HA, HA, HA... ARIUS AND LEFEBVRE ARE ENJOYING EACH OTHERS COMPANY NOW.
[and is keeping the Faith, without remotely pretending to replace, or to be on its own, the Church.]
HA, HA, HA... IT IS NOT KEEPING THE FAITH BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS NEVER WITHOUT PETER. A FAITH THAT IS SEPARATED FROM THE FAITH OF PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IS NOT CATHOLIC AND WILL NEVER BE CATHOLIC UNLESS IT UNITES WITH PETER.
ON THE CONTRARY, HAS PRESENTED ITSELF AS OVER AND ABOVE THE CHURCH.
If you are so mad with Vatican II you have to thank lefebvre for that... HE SIGNED THE DOCUMENTS... hahahah
ReplyDelete[when, in all Church history, were her assembled bishops deliberately ambiguos?]
ReplyDeleteNEVER DID THE CHURCH BECOME DELIBERATELY AMBIBUOUS. NEVER EVER.
[the ambiguity of Vatican II.]
THE VATICAN II IS THE CLEAREST COUNCIL IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. ALL DEBATES ARE RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED AND THE LANGUAGE USED IS VERY MUCH UNDERSTANDABLE TO THE PEOPLE. ONLY THE MALICE OF SSPX AND THEIR MALICIOUS MINDS DO THEY FIND AMBIGUITY.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH VATICAN II. WHAT IS WRONG IS IN THEIR MINDS.
[When did churchmen ever resort to ambiguity unless it was to pave the way for heresy ?]
WHEN LEFEBVRE FORMED THE SSPX. HE WAS AMBIGUOUS WHAT IS IS FAITH AND WHAT IS HIS STAND. HE WAS SILENT DURING THE COUNCIL, HE SIGNED THE PROMULGATED DOCUMENTS AND LATER REJECTED HIS OWN SIGNATURE. HE IS NOT ONLY AMBIGUOUS BUT HYPOCRITE.
THE SSPX IS THE ONE IN HERESY BECAUSE IT IS PROMOTING SCHISM AND DISOBEDIENCE TO THE POPE. IT VIOLATES VATICAN I.
[In Our Lord's Church, yes is to be yes, and no is to be no (Mt.V, 37).]
THAT IS WHY VATICAN II IS CLEAR ON ITS STAND. IT IS LEFEBVRE WHO IS SATANICALLY DOES NOT KNOW IF HE SAID YES TO VATICAN II OR HE REJECTED IT BY REFUSAL TO UPHELD HIS OWN SIGNATURE.
[Kyrie eleison.]
HA, HA, HA... SEE. KYRIE ELEISON IS NOT LATIN BUT GREEK. LATIN IS NOT THE ONLY LANGUAGE CAN BE USED IN LITURGY. AND THERE IS NO DOGMA THAT ONLY KYRIE ELEISON CAN BE RECITED IN A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN LATIN. HA, HA, HA...
[You are blind Fr.]
ReplyDeleteYOU ARE BLIND. YOU HAVE BEEN BLINDED AND DECEIVED BY THE LIES THAT THE SSPX HAVE INVENTED THEMSELVES. I'VE BEEN A PRIEST FOR SEVERAL YEARS BUT I STILL HAVE TO SEE A MASON ACTIVE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
YOU ARE USING THE MASONS AS ALIBI TO HIDE YOUR DISOBEDIENCE TO THE PEOPLE.
[Look not only around you.]
MY WINDOWS ARE LARGER THAN YOURS AND I DO LOOK AT THEM REGULARLY AND I KEEP THEM OPEN MOST OF THE TIME.
[Look outside the window. Open your mind and eyes. Let see in the next few years...]
ALL OF YOU WILL DIE BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS STILL FREE OF MASONS. MANY YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE VATICAN II AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS STRONGER THAN EVER.
IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS MORE AND MORE ANGLICANS, EPISCOPALIANS AND PROTESTANTS WILL CONVERT TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECAUSE OF CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS NOT BECAUSE OF SSPX WHO ARE USELESS IN CONVERTING HERETICS TO THE FAITH.
IF YOU THINK THAT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS THE CHURCH WILL CRUMBLE YOU ARE DOOMED TO DIE DISAPPOINTED. THE GATE OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. BESIDES, WE ARE HERE TO PREVENT IT. UNLIKE YOU WHO ATTACK THE CHURCH INSTEAD OF HELPING HER.
[I asked you for reference please give me. If you cant provide, then stop your hypocrisy.]
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS HYPOCRITE BECAUSE YOU ARE HIDING YOURSELF.
THE MESSAGES THAT THEY ARE PRESENTING HERE ARE THE REFERENCES. I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT I AM NOT ATTACKING THE OFFICIAL TEACHINGS OF SSPX BUT THE ATTACKS AGAINST THE POPES AND VATICAN II BY THEIR FOLLOWERS. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT GET OUT OF HERE AND GO BACK TO YOUR POPELESS SOCIETY FOUNDED BY THE EXCOMMUNICATED FOOL.
[And please refute the links i give you:
http://catholic.cephasministry.com/masonlst.html
if you prove me wrong.]
WHY DO I HAVE TO REFUTE THAT WEBSITE. IF I PRESENT TO YOU THE WEBSITE OF THE VATICAN AND REQUEST YOU TO REFUTE IT WILL YOU DO IT? YOU ARE UNREASONABLE. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO INVENTED YOUR WEBSITES THEN YOU ENJOY THEM UNTIL YOU DIE IN YOUR DELUSIONS AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
ONCE YOU GO TO YOUR PARISH, FIND A MASON AND WHEN YOU FIND ONE BIND HIM.
YOU ARE ONLY MAKING GENERAL ACCUSATIONS THAT ARE PRODUCTS OF YOUR STUPIDITIES.
[I will swallow my pride.]
YOU CAN SWALLOW IT AS LONG AS YOU WANT AND IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR YOU NOT TO RELEASE IT ANYMORE.
[Im sure you did not read the site.]
I HAVE ALREADY READ OTHER SITES SAYING THE SAME THING. YOUR REASONINGS AND ARGUMENTS ARE REPETITIOUS ANYWAY.
THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH CLAIMS THAT POPE PIUS XII SIDED WITH HITLER. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH SAYS THAT THE DIVINITY OF JESUS IS INVENTED BY CONSTANTINE? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? HERE YOU ARE, LIKE THESE ENEMIES PRESENTING ANOTHER THEORY. NEVER MIND. YOU CAN SWALLOW YOUR THEORIES AS LONG AS YOU WANT.
Fr. I think he is right. There were numerous problems happened duting Vatican II. The evidence is in the book: Rhine that flows into the tiber by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, Vatican Journalist, the book is published by TANBooks.
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame!! Fr please do not delete these comments.. hahaha... lets see who will pee on their pants..
ReplyDeletePJ
Hello po! I am a Catholic po and I believe that there were things that went wrong with Vatican II, at least in its interpretation, as Pope Benedict XVI himself affirmed (and affirms) many times. The real spirit and letter of Vatican II was interpreted in a rather mistaken way (hermeneutics of rapture). That is why, now, Pope Benedict is exerting efforts to salvage the true spirit and letter of Vatican II (hermeneutics of continuity); especially in the realm of the Liturgy of the Church. I do believe that there are ambiguities in the Vatican II documents which sometimes contradict the Church's traditional stance in various matters: religious liberty, the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church, extreme ecumenism,etc. In interpretation there were abuses: the total loss of Latin (which Vatican II did not decree; on the contrary, Vatican II affirms the Church's continued use of Latin, in some parts, in the Liturgy), the "de facto" permission (or at least toleration) of liturgical abuses,etc. But, I admit (and I'm happy about them), there are many good things that came out from Vatican II: the "limited" permission of the vernacular in the Liturgy, the spiritual aspects of the Church in contrast to the rather "hierarchical" view of it (although its an integral part of the doctrine on the Church), the expanded use of the Word of God in and out of the Liturgy, etc. But I regret that Vatican II was tainted with some modernist viewpoints and ambiguities in the documents. As Pope John XXIII said the "teachings (dogmatic) of the Church remain the same" and will never be changed, so I prefer to use/adhere to pre-Vatican II teachings (or formulations), these were not "abrogated". Thanks!
ReplyDeleteVatican II per se is free from doctrinal errors. The reader may be not.
ReplyDelete[Fr, hindi lahat ng ayaw mo ay hindi totoo. Sometimes the truth hurts.]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT I LIKE. IT IS WHAT THE POPE AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH HAS OFFICIALLY AND DEFINITELY UPHELD.
TRUTH HURTS, THAT IS WHY LEFEBVRE WAS SO HURT BY THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL BECAUSE HE CANNOT BEAR THE TRUTH IN HIS HEART.
[Vatican II per se is free from doctrinal errors. The reader may be not.]
ReplyDeleteCORRECT. I AGREE.
BUT THAT IS TRUE NOT ONLY FOR VATICAN II DOCUMENTS BUT ALSO FOR THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. REMEMBER THAT SATAN TWISTED THE WORD OF GOD WHEN HE ARGUED WITH THE DIVINE LORD AS REPORTED IN THE SCRIPTURES.
NO CHURCH DOCUMENT CAN BE TOTALLY FREE FROM ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO DISTORT IT OR THOSE WHOSE MIND IS PRONE TO ERROR.
IN ORDER TO AVOID ERROR ONE MUST FOLLOW THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE POPE AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
[Fr. I think he is right. There were numerous problems happened duting Vatican II. The evidence is in the book: Rhine that flows into the tiber by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, Vatican Journalist, the book is published by TANBooks.]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... I KNOW THAT BOOK AND I HAVE A PERSONAL COPY. I HAVE READ IT SEVERAL TIMES.
THE EXISTENCE OF PROBLEMS IS NOT A SIGN THAT THE COUNCIL HAS COMMITTED ERRORS. BECAUSE ALMOST ALL COUNCILS HAVE PROBLEMS BEFORE OR AFTER. DO YOU THINK THAT AFTER THE COUNCIL OF TRENT EVERYTHING WENT SMOOTHLY? NO. IT WAS A GRADUAL STRUGGLE AND DEVELOPMENT.
HOW ABOUT AFTER NICEA? NO, AGAIN. IN FACT JUST FEW YEARS AFTER MORE COUNCILS WERE CALLED. THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL DOES NOT PROVIDE IMMEDIATE SOLUTIONS BUT GUIDE HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. FOR SURE IT WILL TAKE YEARS BEFORE THE PROBLEMS SHALL BE SOLVED.
Fr Abe said:
ReplyDeleteTHE VATICAN II IS THE CLEAREST COUNCIL IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.
Are you lying? or you are just ignorant?
[Are you lying? or you are just ignorant?]
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... MAY BE YOU ARE A LIAR OR SIMPLY INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING WHAT IS CLEAR OR WHAT IS NOT.
THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II ARE WRITTEN IN A MANNER MORE UNDERSTANDABLE TO MODERN READERS. MANY DOCUMENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS COUNCILS ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND FOR THE SIMPLE PEOPLE. GO AROUND THE WORLD AND ASK HOW MANY CATHOLICS UNDERSTAND WHAT 'TRANSUBSTANTATION' MEAN OR 'THEOTOKOS' OR 'CONSUBSTANTIAL'. HA, HA, HA...
Fr, me tanong lang po aq.. ano po ba ang tama at ano po ba ang dapat gawin? communion in tongue or communion in the hands? nalilito po ako kung saan po ako follow. sorry po kung saan saan lang po ako nag post ng tanong... sorry po salamat po Fr.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to state that you are combining 2 or 3 different "anonymous" posts as if the same person wrote them. I wrote ONLY the first one:
ReplyDelete"I agree that Vatican Councils are part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The problem is that some of documents in Vatican II say things that are contrary to previous teaching Magisterium. So, what is a person to do safely? If there is a discrepancy, one must choose to follow what the Church has always taught, and what was taught by Popes who are canonized Saints. You can talk all you want about the "hermeneutics of continuity" in Vatican II, but face the facts! Vatican II was undeniably, at least in part, a hermeneutic of rupture. I am not going to reiterate what has already been written endlessly on this subject and which is easily available."
I will not be replying further, since you, Fr. Abe, are not a reasonable man and will not speak with charity.
God bless you, and I will not be reading your mean-spirited blog anymore.
-L.
[I would just like to state that you are combining 2 or 3 different "anonymous" posts as if the same person wrote them. I wrote ONLY the first one:]
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM. IF THE SUPPORTERS OF SSPX ARE AFRAID TO COME OUT IN THE OPEN AND PREFER TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS THEN IT IS MY FAULT IF I RESPONDED TO THEM AS IF THEY ARE A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL. IF YOU WANT TO BE DISTINCT THEN REVEAL YOUR IDENTITY.
["I agree that Vatican Councils are part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church.]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO I HAVE TO CLAP MY HANDS FOR THAT? OR YOU PREFER THAT I SEND YOU CERTIFICATE OF GRATITUDE?
[The problem is that some of documents in Vatican II say things that are contrary to previous teaching Magisterium.]
HA, HA, HA... THEN, IF THAT IS THE CASE YOU ARE TELLING US THAT THE TEACHING MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH IS NO LONGER RELIABLE AND THEREFORE IT MUST NOT BE FOLLOWED AND INSTEAD WE OBEY THE TEACHING OF THE SSPX. HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE RIDICULOUS.
THE TEACHING MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF. THE CONTRADICTION IS EXISTING IN YOUR MIND WHO PUT MALICE ON THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II.
[So, what is a person to do safely? If there is a discrepancy, one must choose to follow what the Church has always taught, and what was taught by Popes who are canonized Saints.]
THE POPES WHO ARE CANONIZED SAINTS TAUGHT US TO OBEY THE MAGISTERIUM AND NOT ONLY SOCIETY FOUNDED BY A SENILE, EXCOMMUNICATED FOOL. NO CANONIZED POPE EVER TAUGHT THAT A CATHOLIC WILL DISOBEY THE POPE IN FAVOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF SCHISMATIC GROUPS.
[You can talk all you want about the "hermeneutics of continuity" in Vatican II, but face the facts! Vatican II was undeniably, at least in part, a hermeneutic of rupture.]
I DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT HERMENEUTICS OF CONTINUITY BECAUSE THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH IS CONTINUOUS. THERE IS A DOCTRINE OF RUPTURE ONLY AMONG BORN AGAIN INVENTED BY JOHN DARBY AND IN SSPX INVENTED BY LUCIFER... ER... LEFEBVRE.
BUT IN THE HEART OF MILIONS AND MILLIONS OF CATHOLICS IN THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH THERE IS NO RUPTURE. THE CHURCH IS ONE. THE CHANGES ARE ONLY ACCIDENTAL SUCH AS LANGUAGE, SIMPLIFIED RITES, LESS EXPENSIVE VESTMENTS AND A MORE CHARITABLE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITH.
THE SSPX CANNOT ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHARITY IN THEIR HEART. THEY ARE FULL OF POISONS AGAINST THE POPES, AGAINST BISHOPS AND CARDINALS AND AGAINST CHANGES EVEN IF THEY ARE REASONABLE AND VALID.
[I am not going to reiterate what has already been written endlessly on this subject and which is easily available."]
GOOD FOR YOU.
[I will not be replying further, since you, Fr. Abe, are not a reasonable man and will not speak with charity.]
IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVE CHARITY BE CHARITABLE. AFTER YOU OWN KINDS LAMBASTED OUR POPES AND DEMONIZED ARCH. BUGNINI AS WELL AS THE VATICAN II AND THE PAULINE MASS DO YOU THINK THAT WE WILL TREAT YOU WIL CHARITY. O NO,NO,NO... WE ALSO KNOW HOW TO FIGHT USING YOUR OWN WEAPONS. WE ALSO KNOW WHAT A CRUSADE IS ALL ABOUT AND HOW TO DO IT AGAIN.
SO, I AM UNREASONABLE FOR YOU E. WELL, THE FEELING IS MUTUAL. I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON IN YOUR POSITION. I FIND THE SSPX CLAIMS STUPID AND INSANE. YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES IS VERY NOVEL-LIKE... SO FICTIONAL.
[God bless you, and I will not be reading your mean-spirited blog anymore.]
THANKS BUT NO THANKS TO YOUR BLESSING. I DO NOT ACCEPT VALID BUT ILLICIT BLESSINGS. IF YOU WILL NOT READ THIS BLOG ANYMORE SO BE IT. GOOD RIDDANCE!
[-L.]
NICE TO HERE FROM YOU, LEFEBVRE.
PAREHONG TAMA. KASI PAREHONG APROBADO IYAN NG SANTA IGLESIA. SUBALIT MAS OFFICIAL ANG COMMUNION BY THE TONGUE. PERO HINDI MALI ANG COMMUNION BY THE HAND.
ReplyDeleteHINDI DOGMA NG CATHOLIC CHURCH NA COMMUNION BY THE TONGUE LANG ANG PWEDE SA SIMBAHAN.
There are comments here not posted and queries not answered...
ReplyDeleteYOU WAIT. I AM THE ONLY ONE MANAGING THIS BLOG. AND I AM NOT EXCLUSIVELY WORKING ON THIS BLOG ALONE. I HAVE MANY RESPONSIBILITIES.
ReplyDeleteIF YOU WANT TELL WILLIAMSON TO OPEN A BLOG AND I WILL SEND QUESTIONS LIKE WHAT YOU DID AND I WANT TO SEE IF HE CAN ANSWER THEM IMMEDIATELY AS YOU WANT ME TO DO.
[Hello po!]
ReplyDeleteHELLO DIN!
[I am a Catholic po and I believe that there were things that went wrong with Vatican II,]
AS YOU HAVE STATED THERE WERE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG WITH VATICAN II. IT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT THE VATICAN II ITSELF THAT WAS WRONG. THESE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL ITSELF.
THE HOLY SPIRIT PROMISED TO PRESERVE THE CHURCH AND TO PROVIDE INSPIRATION IN COUNCILS BUT THERE IS NO PROMISE THAT EVERYTHING WILL GO SMOOTHLY AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS.
ALL COUNCILS ARE ACCOMPANIED BY DIFFICULTIES, TRIALS AND TENSIONS. THAT IS BUT NORMAL SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH A VERY LARGE INSTITUTION AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
[at least in its interpretation, as Pope Benedict XVI himself affirmed (and affirms) many times.]
THE POPE IS HONEST AND VIRTUOUS AND ALSO REALISTIC. HIS STATEMENT ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH IS ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC FAMILY. BUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH HIM HAS NO RIGHT TO USE THAT AS A WEAPON TO PROVIDE AMMUNITION FOR THEIR SILLY REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO PAPAL AUTHORITY.
EVERY DOCUMENT, THE BIBLE NOT EXCLUDED, ARE SUBJECT TO VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS AND SOME OF THEM ARE ERRONEOUS AND HERETICAL. THAT IS WHY THERE ARE PROTESTANTS, HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BLAME THE SCRIPTURES FOR THE SINS OF THESE PEOPLE. SO, IT IS UNFAIR TO BLAME THE VATICAN II FOR THE ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF OTHERS ESPECIALLY ON THE FAILURE OF LEFEBVRE TO INTERPRET VATICAN II CORRECTLY.
OBVIOUSLY LEFEBVRE AND SSPX INTERPRETED THE COUNCIL DOCUMENTS ERRONEOUSLY.
[The real spirit and letter of Vatican II was interpreted in a rather mistaken way (hermeneutics of rapture).]
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS THE ERROR OF LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX. THEY ARE INSISTING ON A RAPTURE THAT IS NOT EXISTING. THEY HAVE CREATED HYDRAS IN THEIR MINDS. BESIDES, THE SSPX IS PART OF THE RAPTURE. WHEN LEFEBVRE COMMITTED THOSE EXCOMMUNICABLE ACTS HE BECAME THE SOURCE OF A RAPTURE TOGETHER WITH ARIUS, NESTORIUS, LUTHER, HENRY VIII, CALVIN AND OTHERS.
THE SSPX HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SPEAK TO US OF RAPTURE BECAUSE THEY ARE THE INSTIGATORS OF THAT RAPTURE. THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES WHO SPOKE AND DEBATED DURING THE COUNCIL SUCH AS CARDINAL OTTAVIANI, CARDINAL SANTOS OF MANILA OR CARDINAL SIRI LIVED AND DIED FAITHFUL TO THE MAGISTERIUM AND DIDN'T JOIN LEFEBVRE IN HIS FOOLISHNESS.
[That is why, now, Pope Benedict is exerting efforts to salvage the true spirit and letter of Vatican II (hermeneutics of continuity);]
THE POPES FROM PAUL VI, OF BLESSED MEMORY, TO BENEDICT XVI HAVE CORRECTLY INTERPRETED AND IMPLEMENTED THE VATICAN II. AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS NOT SALVAGING BUT SIMPLY CONFRONTING THE COMMON PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH.
ALMOST ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE NOT CAUSED BY VATICAN II BUT DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF SECULARISTIC MEDIA, THE RISE OF SEXUAL REVOLUTION BROUGHT BY THE HIPPIES IN THE 70's, THE SECULARIZATION IN THE SOCIETY... PROBLEMS THAT WERE NOT SO STRONG IN THE PREVIOUS CENTURIES.
[especially in the realm of the Liturgy of the Church.]
THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH HAS UNDERGONE A REVISION AND PROCESS OF SIMPLIFICATION. IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS THAT WILL ARISE. BUT, THE PROBLEM IS MINIMAL BECAUSE THE CATHOLICS BY MILLIONS SHOWED LOVE AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEW MASS. ONLY A HANDFUL FEW LIKE THE SSPX REJECTED THE MASS OF PAUL VI.
[I do believe that there are ambiguities in the Vatican II documents]
O NO, THE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS. THEY ARE CLEAR. HOWEVER, IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO REFUSE TO OBEY EVEN CLEAR THINGS ARE DARK FOR THEIR REBELLIOUS HEARTS. JUST LIKE THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. THEY ARE CLEAR BUT THOSE WHO ARE READING THEM CAN COMMIT ERRORS IN INTERPRETATION UNLESS THEY INTERPRET THEM IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH.
THE SSPX CAN'T INTERPRET VATICAN II CORRECTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH.
[which sometimes contradict the Church's traditional stance in various matters:]
ReplyDeleteIT IS THE SSPX THAT CONTRADICTS THE CHURCH TEACHING AND TRADITION. THE COUNCIL WAS FAITHFUL TO CATHOLIC TRADITION.
[religious liberty,]
IF THEY DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY THEN THE SSPX IS PROMOTING RELIGIOUS SLAVERY.
THE CHURCH NEVER FORCES ANYONE TO ACCEPT HER TEACHINGS. THE PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE AND DECIDE. EVEN GOD RESPECTS THE FREE WILL OF MAN.
IF THE SSPX REJECTS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY THEN THEY ARE VIOLATING THE FREE WILL OF MAN. THAT IS DEMONIC.
THE VATICAN II SIMPLY RECOGNIZES THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN RELIGION BUT IT NEVER TEACHES THAT ALL RELIGION ARE EQUAL.
[the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church,]
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST SUBSISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? IT MEANS THAT THE CHURCH OF JESUS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE COUNCIL NEVER STATED THAT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ONLY ONE OF THE CHURCHES COMPRISING THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. NONE OF THESE THINGS. IT IN FACT, PROCLAIMS THAT IT IS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
HOW ABOUT TRANSUBSTANTATION, THEOTOKOS, CONSUBSTANTIAL, ETC. ARE THEY NOT SUBJECT TO ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS AS WELL? WHY DID THE EARLIER COUNCIL USED TRANSUBSTANTATION WHEN THEY COULD JUST SAY PLAINLY: "THE BREAD BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST"?
YOU ARE SPEAKING AS IF THE PREVIOUS COUNCILS HAVEN'T USE VERY DIFFICULT TERMS THAT ONLY THOSE WHO STUDIED CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY COULD CLEARLY UNDERSTAND.
[extreme ecumenism,]
VATICAN II ONLY TEACHES 'ECUMENISM' AND NOT 'EXTREME ECUMENISM'. WHO TAUGHT YOU THAT 'EXTREME ECUMENISM'?
[etc.]
ACTUALLY, IT IS THE SSPX WHO HAS INVENTED DOCTRINES THAT ARE NOT PART OF TRADITION. LOOK AT THE WAY THEY JUSTIFY DISOBEDIENCE TO THE POPE AND THE CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL BISHOP. THAT IS SATANIC. THEY ARE DESTROYING THE ESSENTIAL INTEGRITY OF THE CHURCH.
[In interpretation there were abuses:]
ReplyDeleteTHE ABUSES ARE COMMITTED BY THOSE WHO ARE UNFAITHFUL TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH AND ONE OF THEM IS LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX. THE DISOBEDIENT LIBERAL AND THE DISOBEDIENT ULTRA TRADITIONAL ARE POSSESSED BY THE SAME DEMON OF DISOBEDIENCE. THEY HATE EACH OTHER WITHOUT REALIZING THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME.
[the total loss of Latin (which Vatican II did not decree; on the contrary, Vatican II affirms the Church's continued use of Latin, in some parts, in the Liturgy),]
THE LOSS OF LATIN IS NOT A LOSS CAUSED BY THE COUNCIL. IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO NATURALLY LOST LATIN. ACTUALLY, LATIN BECAME THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE IT HAS REPLACED GREEK AS THE LINGUA FRANCA OF THE WORLD. NOW LATIN IS NO LONGER SPOKEN BY PEOPLE SO THE CHURCH WISELY DECIDED TO USE THE LIVING LANGUAGE IN COMMON USED.
THE PRESENCE OF LATIN IN THE LITURGY IS NOT A DOGMA BUT ONLY PASTORAL. IT CAN BE CHANGED AND BE REPLACED.
IF THE HOLY SPIRIT WANTED TO RETAIN LATIN AS THE ONLY LANGUAGE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HE SHOULD HAVE PRESERVED IT AS THE LINGUA FRANCA OF THE WORLD. ON THE CONTRARY, HE ALLOWED IT TO DISAPPEAR INTO ALMOST OBLIVION.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT LATIN WAS TOTALLY LOST BECAUSE THE MASSES OF THE POPE IN THE VATICAN ESPECIALLY DURING SOLEMNITIES ARE IN LATIN. AND IN MANY CHURCHES GREGORIAN CHANTS AND LATIN MASSES ARE CELEBRATED AS WE DID IN THE SEMINARY. WE USED TO CELEBRATE THE MASS IN LATIN EVERY SATURDAY EVENING AND DOING IT WITH BEAUTY AND GRACE.
SO, STOP SPREADING THAT LATIN WAS TOTALLY LOST. O NO, NO, NO... JUST LEARN OF WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE MANY SEMINARIES, MONASTERIES AND CHURCHES.
[the "de facto" permission (or at least toleration) of liturgical abuses,etc.]
THE PROBLEM WITH SSPX IS THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT TLM IS LITURGICAL ABUSE. THEY SEE ABUSES WHERE THERE IS NONE. LIKE THE PHARISEES THEY DO NOT SEE THE GOOD THINGS ON OTHERS EXCEPT THE ONE THEY PREFER.
LITURGICAL ABUSES MUST BE CONDEMNED BUT THOSE ABUSES ARE RARE. THE LOCAL CHURCHES ALSO WORK HARD TO CORRECT THE ABUSES ON THE GRASSROOTS.
THE SSPX DO NOT SEE THEIR CANONICAL ABUSES, THEIR ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, THEIR PUTTING ASUNDER THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AND THEIR ABUSE OF THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AS DECREED IN VATICAN I... NO, THEY ONLY LOOK AT OTHERS MALICIOUSLY.
[But, I admit (and I'm happy about them), there are many good things that came out from Vatican II:]
ReplyDeletePRAISE THE LORD. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
[the "limited" permission of the vernacular in the Liturgy,]
LATIN IS STILL THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH HOWEVER, AS A PRIEST LIVING IN A PROVINCE WHOSE FAITHFUL ARE MOSTLY NOT FLUENT EVEN IN ENGLISH I THINK IT IS FOOLISH TO IMPLEMENT LATIN ON A REGULAR BASIS. SOMETIMES IT CAN BE SO LIKE IN SOLEMNITIES OR INSERT SOME GREGORIAN CHANTS DURING THE MASS BUT IT IS NOT PRACTICAL, PASTORAL AND REASONABLE TO USE LATIN REGULARLY.
THE USE OF A LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDABLE TO PEOPLE IS A PRIMARY DUTY OF THE CHURCH AS TEACHER, EVANGELIZER AND DISTRIBUTER OF THE HOLY THINGS OF GOD. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE CANON OF THE MASS THE PRIEST IS TALKING TO GOD BUT THE PEOPLE DESERVES TO KNOW WHAT THEIR LEADER TELLS THE LORD GOD BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE NEW COVENANT. THAT IS WHY THE DIVINE MASTER CELEBRATED THE LAST SUPPER NOT IN LATIN BUT IN THE LIVING LANGUAGE OF HIS TIME.
[the spiritual aspects of the Church in contrast to the rather "hierarchical" view of it (although its an integral part of the doctrine on the Church),]
CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. BOTH THE HIERARCHY AND THE 'COMMUNIO' MUST BE PRESERVED AND UPHELD. WE TEACHES THE SPIRITUAL ASPECTS TO REFLECT ON BUT THE CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THAT THE HIERARCHY MUST BE REJECTED.
THAT IS WHY VATICAN II ENRICHES OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE FAITH.
[the expanded use of the Word of God in and out of the Liturgy, etc.]
YES. EVEN THE PROTESTANTS ARE SURPRISED NOWADAYS HOW OUR LAY PEOPLE COULD BE SO WELL-VERSED IN SCRIPTURES. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE REGULAR CHURCH GOERS.
[But I regret that Vatican II was tainted with some modernist viewpoints and ambiguities in the documents.]
NOT ACTUALLY. THE DOCUMENTS DIDN'T SUCCUMB TO MODERNISM BECAUSE IT PRESERVES OUR BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS, THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURES AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH WITH THE POPE AS THE SUPREME PONTIFF. MODERNISM REJECTS ALL THESE.
THE COUNCIL SIMPLY GAVE US NEW PERSPECTIVE ON OUR FAITH THAT EMPOWERS US TO FACE THE CHALLENGE OF MODERNISM, ATHEISM, COMMUNISM AND OTHERS. THESE CAN'T JUST BE DEFEATED BY SIMPLE DECLARATIONS OF ANATHEMAS AND PUBLICATION OF PROHIBITED BOOKS. THOSE ARE SUPERFICIAL AND NOT ENOUGH. WHAT IS NEEDED IS TO FACE THESE ENEMIES IN ALL STRATAS OF LIFE AND CONFRONT THEM FAIRLY AND SQUARELY.
INDEED, THE LAY PEOPLE NOW ARE DEBATING AND DEFENDING THE FAITH IN ALMOST ALL FORA. JUST LOOK AT THE BLOG SPHERES HOW OUR LAY INTELLIGENTLY DEBATES THE ATHEISTS AND THE AGNOSTICS. THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT BECAME VERY STRONG AND HIGHLY ORGANIZED THEMSELVES LED BY THE LAY. JOHN XXIII THROUGH HIS PEACE EFFORTS HELPED IN AVOIDING WAR DURING THE COLD WAR. HE DIALOGUED WITH BOTH U.S. AND SOVIET GOVERNMENTS. THEN JOHN PAUL THE GREAT IS CONSIDERED AS ONE OF THE MAIN FORCES THAT BROUGHT THE FALL OF COMMUNISM IN EASTERN EUROPE, THE OTHERS ARE RONALD REAGAN OF US AND MARGARET THATCHER OF BRITAIN.
[As Pope John XXIII said the "teachings (dogmatic) of the Church remain the same" and will never be changed, so I prefer to use/adhere to pre-Vatican II teachings (or formulations), these were not "abrogated".]
VERY TRUE.
[Thanks!]
THANK YOU ALSO.
Secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Castrillón on November 13, 2005:
ReplyDelete“We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking — as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay — a fuller communion, because communion does exist.”
Ha, ha, ha... NOW, IN ORDER TO COVER YOUR SHAME YOU ARE HIDING ON THE AUTHORITY OUR BELOVED CARDINAL SECRETARY FOR THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI. HA, HA, HA...
ReplyDeleteARE YOU NOT ASHAMED OF THAT. YOUR SO-CALLED MODERNISTS, FREE MASONS SUPPORTERS AND UNFAITHFUL TO TRADITION ARE WELCOMING YOU BUT YOUR OWN BISHOPS ARE SO ARROGANT TO COMMIT THEMSELVES TO THE LOVING EMBRACE OF THIS BISHOP AND THE HOLY FATHER.
THIS STATEMENT OF CARDINAL CASTRILLON SHOWS THE HONESTY AND MAGNANIMITY OF THE HOLY SEE AND AT THE SAME TIME IT MANIFESTS THE DEGREE OF REBELLIOUSNESS OF SSPX. SEE THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE WORDS OF CARDINAL CASTRILLON AND THE SSPX ALFONSO DE GARRETA OR CALDERETA IF YOU PREFER.
IN YOUR SHAME, STOP HIDING ON THE AUTHORITY OF OUR OWN LICIT BISHOPS.
DON'T FORGET WHAT DE GARRETA STATED: OIL WILL NEVER BE MIXED WITH WATER. THE TRUE CHURCH WILL NEVER BE MIXED WITH THE SCHISMATICS.