(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Sedevacantism is analogous to the Arian Heresy
Papal Infallibility: Fact Vs. Falsehood
lecture given to live audience, available on CD from: Oltyn Library Services
by Father Gregory Hesse, S.T.D., J.C.D.
The Sufferings of Christ (from final 15 minutes of his one hour lecture [my comments in brackets])
The Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary are the mysteries of the Church Triumphant
in heaven. The Sorrowful Mysteries are the mysteries of the Church Suffering in
Purgatory. And the Joyful Mysteries are the mysteries of the Church fighting. I am
happy and proud to sit here as one of the officers in that army! That's the Joyful
But in order to understand the sufferings of Christ you have to meditate on the
Sorrowful Mysteries. And then you have to understand an analogy, an insight --
and if I may allow myself a personal remark -- that only a saint can have, the
insight that I'm going to reveal to you now, that only a saint can have, and
Archbishop Lefebvre had it!
The 29th of June 1982, at the ordinations in Econe, he gave a sermon and he said the following:
Don't get lost because of the sufferings of the Church today.
You see, the major heresies came up because people did not understand the
sufferings of Christ. The Manicheans, I quoted before, the Manicheans and
Pope Liberius -- they could not, somehow, they could not understand the
sufferings of Christ -- and they said: A man who suffered like this cannot
be God. And they went into heresy, and many of them went into hell.
[The Manichaean heresy was a precursor to Arianism. Some scholars claim
that Manichaeanism is a very important ancient religion that was largely
forgotten over time, and ancient texts are lately emerging that give a
renewed interest to our modern discoveries of its long-forgotten historical
Two centuries later, under Pope Honorius, they [Monotheist heretics] again
said: These sufferings of Christ on the Cross, are absolutely incomprehensible!
It is impossible that God goes through this, therefore, the sacrifice of the
Cross was only symbolic. Christ is God, but he is not full human being. He
only assumed a human appearance, because it is impossible that God
may suffer like this. They went into heresy, and many of them went into hell.
[The Monotheist heresy persists to this day, principally in Mohammedism.]
And this is what is happening today!
The people cannot understand the suffering of the Church.
And they confuse the two aspects of papacy:
The divine aspect of infallibility,
And the human aspect of sin, error, blasphemy and crime!
And again, there are two groups that cannot digest what is going on.
There are the people who say:
It is impossible that somebody who commits crimes like this -- it is impossible that
somebody utters heresies like this -- can possibly be Pope.
It's like saying, one who suffers that much cannot be God -- Arianism
And then you have the others who say: It is impossible that the Pope makes
mistakes like this. The Pope is the Pope is the Pope is the Pope! Whatever he
says cannot be that wrong! They think that he's only God, and they forget
the human side, just like the Monotheists under Honorius.
When in reality, we have to understand, this Pope [speaking of JPII] is a human being.
He has a social background that was horrible. He never had a chance to study
theology the way I did! He grew up in heresy. He grew up in total confusion of
philosophy. He's a phenomenologist. For him, this is a glass of wine if it has wine
in it; it is an ash tray if I use it as an ash tray. Saint Thomas would say this is a
glass of wine, even if I use it as an ash tray. That's realism.
This pope never had realism.
Long before the Council (V. II) he said, we have to have religious liberty.
Long before the Council he said, the truth depends on how you see it.
This is his background. This is the human background.
And you believe that the Holy Spirit is ASLEEP??
The Holy Spirit made sure that Vatican II never became obligatory.
Maybe it never even was a council!
The Holy Spirit made sure there is no, single, one papal signature under a
document that says the I have to use the new missal. There is a
"Notification of the Congregation" [with tone of sarcasm!] that says I must
use the new missal.
The Holy Spirit made sure that this pope in 20 years of pontificate, only once he
said, in virtue of my apostolic authority, I herewith define, declare, decree, that
no woman can ever become a priest and this has to be believed forever.
[JPII did not use those exact words, but he did use words generally to that same effect]
I agree with this! That is the only time he used the terminology of infallibility.
And this is exactly the reason why, to me, the question if he's really Pope or not,
in a certain sense, is academic.
The question if the new mass is valid or not is academic; you must not go there anyway.
The question if this pope is pope or not is academic; you can't follow him anyway.
The question if the new mass is a good thing or not is academic. It's against
Divine Law, Canon 13, 7th session of the Council of Trent [which was sealed by
anathema, the binding condemnation of error that invokes the infallible protection
of the Holy Ghost, and without that it would not be infallible], period. It's against
Quo Primum, which is an infallible document [because it is sealed with a
condemnation of error, albeit with different words than Canon 13], by Saint Pius V,
period. That's it.
These are academic, theological, speculative questions, which are highly
interesting -- but not to you!
You have to save your soul. So do I. And everything that I said, whatever I said
and whatever I will say, is of zero, zilch, nixt, nothing value, if you're not in the
state of grace.
Most catechisms, unfortunately, do not follow the Baroque tradition of catechism,
where the first question was the following. This was a sermon -- of 30 seconds:
Question: Why was I born?
Answer: I was born to contribute to the greater glory of God and thus reach heaven. Amen.
|Posted Jun 18, 2012, 8:03 pm
Ignored by: 0