.


We learn a lot from St. Peter.   [That is, those with ears to hear learn a lot.]

St. Peter, in the same chapter,  he has just been made pope.  Then Our Lord begins to speak of His passion.  He begins to speak of the Cross, that He will go to Jerusalem to be betrayed, spat upon, and crucified.  

And St. Peter, of course he speaks humanly, he loves Our Lord, humanly;  and that will rise throughout the next couple of months and years.  And then St. Peter is thinking very humanly;  and perhaps many of us would speak the same.  He said, "Lord, don't speak this way!  Lord, what are you talking about your 'death' - 'crucifixion'?  This can't happen to YOU!"  And remember, Our Lord came for that reason, for the Cross;  for that hour of redemption -- otherwise, heaven would never be opened;  no souls would be saved;  no sins would be forgiven without the shedding of His Blood.  And St. Peter says (or he has good will, I mean, he's certainly sincere, but he's wrong):  "Lord, you can't go to Jerusalem.  You can't go to be crucified."  

What does Christ say to him?  Remember, He had just made him pope.  Christ says to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan!  For your thoughts are not the thoughts of God!"  

And Peter -- well, that just broke his heart, or Peter (he probably, I mean, I don't know if he wept, but he was- -that just broke his heart to hear that), he had just been SLAMMED by Our Lord.  And later, Our Lord will talk to him and clarify to him;  but the lesson to us is powerful;  to tell us, the pope has the greatest authority on earth, but he's also a man, and if he doesn’t use his infallible authority, and he speaks as a private theologian, he can be WRONG.  Pope John XXII was WRONG when he taught that the devils at some time would be forgiven and that hell would freeze over:  FALSE.  And he had to be corrected by the theologians, and Pope John XXII (back in the 1400s), he had the humility to correct his error.  

And there have been weak popes.  Pope Liberius, who excommunicated St. Athanasius, he was weak.  And he signed a heretical docuмent, the semi-Arian creed, which called Christ a super-man, but not God.  And then Pope Honorius III, who was MORE than weak;  he just didn't correct heresy.  He didn't smash out the fires when he should have.  And he was also condemned.  But he's still pope.  

And so, this teaches us a huge lesson [that is, it teaches those of us who are capable of learning instead of invincibly ignorant]:  that we can have popes who are popes, and fail even against the Faith, and still be popes.  We have this in the Galatians chapter 2, when St. Paul has to stand up to St. Peter, and publicly resist him to the face, because St. Peter started to be compromising with the Jєωs, as is happening again, now.  And St. Paul had to publicly rebuke him.  And if that's the case with the pope, how come there's so few priests publicly rebuking Bishop Fellay, for compromising the Holy Roman Catholic Faith, and overturning the very foundations of the Society?  He didn't have the right to overthrow the decisions of the General Chapter of 2006!  And he didn't have the right to overturn the foundations laid by Archbishop Lefebvre:  that next time there's a discussion with Rome, it will be on the level of doctrine, and I will ask, he said, Rome, do YOU believe in the Syllabus, in Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Pius X's Pascendi, Anti-Modernist Oath, and so forth, and so forth.  And if you DON'T believe in these, there can be no discussion!  And he made it very clear:  No agreement with Rome until Rome comes back to Tradition!  

And everybody's saying, "Well, there's no agreement, so what are you worried about?"  Well, what's the danger of making an agreement with Rome?  The danger is, we might (in a year or two) start saying: "Well, Vatican II is interpretable in the light of Tradition." That, "The Newmass is legitimate." That "The Newcode is acceptable," point blank.  That, "The Newprofession of Faith is acceptable."  That "Religious liberty and the docuмent on non-Christian religions [Vat.II cit. needed] is reconcilable with the Church's Magisterium.  

Ladies and gentlemen, WAKE UP! [unless, that is, you're a dogmatic sedevacantist, in which case you're dug in and prefer your continued ignorance to knowledge]  This is what HAS BEEN SIGNED and NOT REJECTED.  This has been accepted [and nobody is losing their office for accepting it, as this corruption would SEEM to 'prevail' in the Church].  

And so everybody's worried about the thief breaking in the back door, when the elephant with the thief is standing in the living room, ready to tear the whole house down!  In other words, the poison of the agreement has already been SWALLOWED.   And the agreement, well, that's just *ppbbtt* - that's just nothing!  That's insignificant compared to the compromise against the Faith!  

So we LEARN.  [That is, unless you're sede... oh, never mind...]

And Our Lord also told St. Peter:  "I pray for thee, Peter, that when you be converted you strengthen your brethren."  So, why does Our Lord say, "Peter… when you be converted?"  Someone has to be CONVERTED, who has lost:  the FAITH.  Or, is COMPROMISING the Faith.  So Our Lord says these powerful words, "I pray for thee, Peter, that when you be converted you strengthen your brethren."  Which tells us in the papacy, the whole lineage of popes down to now, these men, as vicars of Christ, can - lose - the - Faith.  Can - compromise - the - Faith.  And that's EXACTLY has been the case with these popes, and that's why the Virgin of La Salette warned us:  "ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRIST."  And how are these popes preparing (for) the Antichrist?  Very Easy:  By Ecuмenism, by Religious Liberty that 'uncrowns' Christ as God and King [words of +F], and by [false] *Collegiality,* which is 'democracy' in the Church.  

That's why these popes don't believe in infallibility.  And that's why their canonizations are not infallible, because they don't believe in infallibility anymore!  And that's why Paul VI didn't invoke it [because he didn't believe in it!].  And that's why none of these popes …[have nothing to do with dogmatic definition, such as BoD or Mary Co-Redemptrix]… the last pope to speak infallibly, fulfilling the conditions was actually Pope Pius XII in 1950 [on November 1st, All Saints' Day], defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which has always been believed and it was not a new doctrine.  




*Collegiality* [must be properly understood, for it is not inherently evil.  It is rather when groups of bishops, or perhaps a clique of invincibly ignorant sedevacantists, would presume for themselves the power to change Tradition to suit their whims or the pressures of their 'friends'.  Then it resembles 'democracy', and is evil, and may be better recognized by saying, "FALSE Collegiality."  But when the world's bishops gather in support of the Pope, to act as a united Church in some good action or good legislation or good consecration, it is a good thing if it is in the good interest of the Church and according to the will of God.  For example:  the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary would be a GOOD act of Collegiality, and it would be according to the will of God.  This we know to be true.  (Of course, invincibly ignorant sedevacantists do not know this nor many other things.)]


.

This is unbelievably bad theology.

.

Actually, I like your post, Ladislaus.......... as it were.

Quote from: Father Hewko

and if he doesn’t use his infallible authority, and he speaks as a private theologian, he can be WRONG.  Pope John XXII was WRONG when he taught that the devils at some time would be forgiven and that hell would freeze over:  FALSE.  And he had to be corrected by the theologians, and Pope John XXII (back in the 1400s), he had the humility to correct his error.

This is utterly preposterous.  In no way, shape, or form can Vatican II or the New Mass or canonizations be considered acts of a "private theologian".  John XXII never taught his error to the Church; his theorizing was limited to his sermons.  So now the Magisterium becomes nothing more than the ramblings of a private theologian such as the Jesuits who taught me in High School?

While I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, it seems to me there is something missing in your understanding of the true nature of Modernism.  

Have you STUDIED Pascendi?  I don't mean just read it, I mean take it apart and digest it from beginning to end.  It would seem that you must not have for you to say these things.

First off, Vat.II and the Newmass were not traditionally promulgated.  The Modernists were very clever to use the innovations that were running rampant in the 1960's (socially and culturally, worldwide, but especially in the USA) as a sort of 'springboard' by which they launched their innovations in how to make Vat.II and the Newmass APPEAR to be "official," when they were actually a bald-faced REVOLUTION.  Nothing so revolutionary can ever be construed as Traditional.  And it is precisely in Catholic Tradition that we find all of our safeguards against corruption (in theology, ecclesiology, philosophy, soteriology, exegesis - anything to do with running the Church).  And some day (the sooner the better, but who knows how long it will take - if EVER), the entirety of Vat.II and the Newmass and the Newcalendar and the Newsaints, will have to be quarantined and made to pass the test of Tradition.  If this does not happen, then we are on the fast track to the end of TIME, because it will not be tolerated by God.  We should remember what has happened in the past when man was so pertinacious with ignoring God's commands and His revelation.

Second, the Newcanonizations:  this is rather a new level of insult to God, and by natural means most perplexing to our observation.  I don't claim to be an expert, but from what I saw of the J23/JPII proceedings, they pulled out all the stops to give it a quasi-traditional appearance, with a most disturbing MIX of newfangled bizarreness, like an A-B-A-B-A-B (where A=traditional & B=Modernist), which was designed to hook the fence-sitters and to blasphemously reel in the "Fisherman's catch."  

Nor am I wont to condemn sedevacantists' reaction to the whole mess, because it is A MESS to be sure, and their reaction is not unreasonable, on a human level.

However, when you take the time to comprehend what Modernism is, you will see that there is a very dangerous aspect to it, by which the output, the product, the fruits of Modernists who have wormed their way to the highest offices of the Church, would gradually (or by a mix of degrees and large leaps and pretentious back-tracking if for nothing more than appearances) promote an overall corruption of the ostensible Church.  This passion of the Church is most ominously presaged by the Passion of Our Lord.  Does the Church undergoing such corruption for all to see mean that it is therefore not the Church?  The same question can be asked of Our Lord:  was He therefore not Jesus Christ because He was suffering such abominations for all to see?

Elsewhere in this same sermon (it's over 50 minutes in duration, and I only quoted about 4 minutes here), Fr. Hewko reminds us of Our Lord's response to St. Peter when he said that Jesus shouldn't talk about going to Jerusalem and being crucified:  "Get behind me, Satan!"  These words are emblazoned on the St. Benedict Medal, the most powerful sacramental against demonic influence:  

Quote

That's why these popes don't believe in infallibility.  And that's why their canonizations are not infallible, because they don't believe in infallibility anymore!  And that's why Paul VI didn't invoke it [because he didn't believe in it!].  And that's why none of these popes …[have nothing to do with dogmatic definition, such as BoD or Mary Co-Redemptrix]… the last pope to speak infallibly, fulfilling the conditions was actually Pope Pius XII in 1950 [on November 1st, All Saints' Day], defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which has always been believed and it was not a new doctrine.

Ridiculous.  Popes are endowed with infallibility negatively or passively, whether they believe in it or not, for the protection of the Church.  According to Father Hewko, also, except for the once-per-century solemn definition, the entire Magisterium can be corrupted and thoroughly polluted with error, and an Ecuмenical Council authorized by a legitimate pope can lead the entire Church into error and modernism.

Popes are endowed with infallibility at all times but they do not invoke it deliberately at all times, nor does everything else they do automatically get protected by the Holy Ghost.  They might even give prophesy without realizing they are doing so, which has happened several times.  But Popes CAN speak and even teach error, at which times it is perhaps left up to the laymen to cry FOUL, if they would be heard.  

The Holy Ghost negatively protects the Church by preventing Popes from infallibly defining in error or ever solemnly condemning any proposition or teaching erroneously.  Because any such thing once condemned by the Pope is condemned in eternity.  

But the conciliar and postconciliar popes have GIVEN UP on solemn condemnations of error and on solemn dogmatic definitions.  Therefore, there is no positive protection from the Holy Ghost to be had in all this MESS.  That is, it's up to us to observe the solemn dogmas already defined in previous centuries, and to apply them to current events.  This is normally what theologians and the hierarchy are for.

But it helps us when a good priest, like Fr. Hewko, stands up and pronounces his own condemnation of modern errors!  

I like Father Hewko a lot.  I knew him personally at the seminary.  

You're a fortunate man.  God has blessed you with this experience.

But, to my sorrow, I have to say that this is nothing short of heresy.

It seems to me you're being rash here.  I guess you have the right to say this, but I disagree with you.

Terrible theology like this only feeds sedevacantism.  

I say, that it feeds the error of sedevacantism inasmuch as that error fails to comprehend the true danger of Modernism.  Since it is an error to miss how pernicious and deadly Modernism is and consequently its heinous fruits such as is becoming rampant in these times, that becomes yet ANOTHER error in the Grand Sewer of All Heresies that is Modernism.

If you want to make a solid case for R&R, then at least apply SOLID theological principles and don't discredit your entire position.

I will go so far as to admit that Fr. Hewko's principles here are a bit incompletely developed.  But after all, this was just a sermon.  It seems to me that he is on the right track, and he doesn't get a whole lot of help.  If he had the time, he would greatly benefit from consultation with other fine priests of the Resistance, such as Fr. Pivert, Fr. Rioult, Fr. Pinaud, Fr. Altamira, Dom Thomas Aquino, Fr. Trincado, et. al.  They no doubt have precious little time to develop their observations and understanding of our current crisis.  Nor would I presume that what he says in this short sermon is NOT at least somewhat of a product of such association with other priests of the Resistance.  

Fr. Hewko has come out swinging in the past before other priests on certain issues, and maybe this is just another example of this.  I am eager to see how it develops.  And knowing what I do of his style, it will certainly develop.

But it also seems to me that it would do no good for them to confer with sedevacantists or other deniers of the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  

And as irrelevant as BoD might be in all of this, it likewise seems to me that it should not be a matter even touched upon in such conferences with priests like this, because it can only DISTRACT them from the focused goal, since being undefined, it harbors a lot of inherent disagreement.

So far the arguments raised by Nishant are the strongest I've seen for R&R.  But this stuff here is, at best, utter nonsense, and at worst a heretical denial of the indefectibility of the Church and the nature / authority of the Church's magisterium.  At least Nishant honestly said he had to accept the canonization of JP2.  Father Hewko would have been condemned by even the most liberal of pre-Vatican II Catholic theologians as a heretic.

Again, you wouldn't be saying this if you really were to comprehend the pernicious effects of Modernism, for in that is the core essence of modern ecclesiastical corruption.  I would not be surprised if the word "Modernism" is contained in the Third Secret of Fatima, for that would go a long way toward explaining why Modernists would not want it to be made public.

.

.

Regarding this "lingering for centuries before being sent to hell," it should not be a matter of confusion for us to wonder how someone who dies let's say, 1 year before the end of the world and sent to Purgatory "until the end of the world," might be thereby prevented from enduring Purgatory for as "long" as someone who had died 500 years earlier, when both of them would be culpable for the same temporal punishment.  

The reason is, that when we die we depart not only from this world but from created TIME, and we enter into God's eternity, which we are not given to fully comprehend in this life.  What we do know is that God is not subject to time as we know it.  However, there is some manner of DURATION in Purgatory which would seem to be analogous to our "time" here on earth, and hence the term "temporal" in regards to punishment in Purgatory.  But it might be a 'duration' that is very different from the universal aspect of "time" as we know it.

.

.

Apparently Ladislaus has not sufficiently studied Pascendi,,,,,,,,, yet.

.

R&R tries to very narrowly circuмscribe the Church's infallibility to the extraordinary solemn definitions.  SVs overreact by claiming that EVERY utterance in any "authoritative" papal teaching must be considered infallible for all intents and purposes.  Both extremes are far from the truth.  Msgr. Fenton actually does a good job of explaining the various degrees of certainty in the authoritative magisterium (making distinctions that were lost on people like Ambrose, who essentially claimed that Pius XII's Allocution to the Midwives was infallible and required internal intellectual assent, rather than a degree of religious submission).

While I agree with the R&Rs to the extent that not everything in the authoritative papal magisterium is infallible, the R&Rs miss the forest for the trees.  What R&R posits is a Magisterium that has DEFECTED on a grand scale.  We're not talking about an obiter dictum here or there in some Encyclical.  We're talking about a Magisterium that has become thoroughly corrupted and polluted with error and heresy.  That is heretical, for it involves the defection of the Magisterium and therefore of the Church.  No theologian prior to R&R would not have considered such assertions to be heretical.  I pointed this out to Bishop Williamson during many long conversations on the subject that I had with him when I was at Winona, and his response was that these pre-V2 theologians could never have envisioned this crisis in the Church.  To which I responded, "But don't the principles still apply?"

The difference between R&R and SVs is that R&R accept that we are not permitted to proclaim the pope is not the pope.

And that position I have no problem with per se.  But unfortunately most R&R posits a defection of the Magisterium.  THAT is what I have a problem with when it comes to R&R.

Spare me your Protestant private interpretation of the Bible... *SNIP*

To think a Catholic is capable of such atrocious disrespect of a man consecrated to God!