John XXIII certainly revealed himself as a false prophet and an enemy of Christ and the Gospel from the very start of Vatican II.
He worked hard to lead the world into disastrous errors, into the Great Apostasy.
The theology of the past simply does not ask the right questions about such a creature and the significance of his incomparably wicked deeds given his apparently kosher occupation of the See of Peter. Bellarmine and Suarez and that bunch simply could not conceive of the Vatican II situation and of the way in which Modernists operate: Pius X, of course, had a better idea of it, but even he failed to make it clear how the Modernists were heretics at all, even though they clearly were not Christian believers at all.
"Maybe we should not be so certain that Jesus of Nazareth is anything to us but some ancient Jew who apparently got crucified for reasons we'll never know."
Where precisely would Aquinas find any heresy in such a statement? The "maybe" itself ends the heresy hunt right off the bat. It is evidence of a lack of pertinacity, better in any ecclesiastical court than a comely lass's lifting her skirt while on the stand is in any secular court. Of course, we all know that it is REALLY evidence of diabolical perversity. But God and simple believers don't write the heresy rules. Clerics who are given to covering for their clerical homeboys write the heresy rules and enforce them- or don't.
Where exactly is the heresy in the statement of Cardinal Hume that alhough he personally believed in the Resurrection, modern Christianity could carry quite nicely should it develop that Jesus rotted in His tomb after all?
The book has yet to be written in which the atrocities that Roncalli uttered against the holy Way of Christ for the last few decades of his life are analyzed and condemned for what they truly are: exhortations ordered to a false gospel and a general No to Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Most theologizing on these matters is inane and foolishly pedantic on all sides. Old-timers such as Bellarmine and Suarez conceived of theological warfare in the way that generals and kings conceived of sociopolitical warfare: everyone stand in a nice straight line and politely blows some chaps on the other side to smithereens at an agreed-upon time in an agreed-upon place. This is why in the end most Traditional Catholics come down hard against orthodoxy and in favor of heresy and error and vice.
"Well, pertinacity has not been proven!" they say in defense of the most outrageous and blasphemous purveyors of falsehood. "And the truth supposedly denied would not even be of divine and Catholic faith!"
The style now among Traditionalist mainliners is to attack sedevacantists and make common cause with people who not so long ago they rejected as "Novus Ordo Conciliarist non-Catholics."
John XXIII? He's off MY list of popes. I would have to see it written in some papal encyclical or Conciliar decree that being a false prophet and a destroyer of a billion lives in Christ is compatible with true papacy, whereas being a bona fide, card-carrying, horn-tootin' heretic, formal and everything, not just material, is not so compatible.
Topic: "He who hears you, hears Me..." (Read 20380 times)