[bracketed are my comments] Bold Italic and Underline are my emphasis

The Devastated Vineyard by Dietrich von Hildebrand, 1973

The Devastated Vineyard Introduction

AN UNPREJUDICED look at the present devastation of the vineyard of the Lord cannot fail to notice the fact that a “fifth column” has formed within the Church, a group which consciously aims at systematically destroying her. (They are referred to as the “Mafia” by some, including authorities in the Church.) We have already pointed this out in earlier works. One alarming symptom is the fact that priests, theologians, and bishops who have lost their faith do not leave the Church, but rather remain within her — and indeed play the role of saviors of the Church in the modern world. Why do they not openly leave the Church, like Voltaire, Renan, and many others? [see above on Karl Adam]

Their systematic and artful undermining of the holy Church testifies clearly enough to the fact that this is a Conscious conspiracy, involving Freemasons and Communists who, in spite of their differences and usual enmity in other matters, are working together toward this goal. For the Church is the arch-enemy of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and is the principal hindrance to the Communists in their conquest of the world. Naturally the Communists are incomparably more dangerous [note concerning the current time we are in: Obama is as Communist as it gets, Abortion by Healthcare is just part of Socialist State Control over everyone’s lives – and deaths], but Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, though in theory not so clearly antithetical [but see Msgr. Dillon in The War of the Antichrist against the Church] to Christianity, is a welcome co-worker in the “fifth column.”

The inconceivable thing is that this conspiracy exists within the Church, that there are bishops and even cardinals, and many priests and religious, who play the role of Judas. That such a “fifth column” exists is not merely my unauthoritative private opinion; on the contrary, a number of cardinals, bishops, and prelates have declared in private conversations that no one who is not blind can overlook this incredibly tightly organized “fifth column” within the Church. Of course the number of religious who belong to this “fifth column” may be comparatively small [or not – in 1973 the extent of it was not that widely known by many people], but they have a clear aim, coupled with the kind of intelligence that one finds in all Soviet and Chinese embassies [emphasize this one! – those Intelligence Services were and are absolutely descended from Jєω infiltrations into governments], which should be more precisely characterized as slyness and cunning, to distinguish it from true intelligence.

It must be emphasized from the outset, however, that the destruction of the Church is being sought from two completely different motives. In one case it is the conspiracy which has existed at all times to undermine the Faith and destroy the Church, with the sole difference that those involved do not want to undermine the Church from without, but rather from within. This is precisely the system of the “fifth column.” People who pretend to be Catholics, who assume offices in the Church, are seeking from within, under the banner of reform and progress, to destroy the Church.

Completely different from these people are those who do not want to destroy the Church as such, i.e., who do not seek the disappearance of the Church, but who rather want to transform the Church into something which completely contradicts her meaning and essence. This includes all those who wish to make the Church of Jesus Christ into a purely humanitarian society, to rob her of her supernatural character, to secularize and desacralize her. They share that camouflage of the enemies of the Church which comes from using the shibboleths of “reform,”“progress,” and “adaptation to modern man.” But they do not want to eliminate the Church. The catchwords “reform” and “progress” are not mere tricks which they use; they really believe them [only with seared consciences – they will answer to Christ for it, for eternity.].

The result of the activity of this group is the same as that of the first group; only their motives are different. This latter group would vehemently protest if one were to accuse them of intending the destruction of the Church. But they have lost the true Christian Faith to such an extent that they do not clearly understand that the secularized, humanitarian organization which they want to make out of the holy Church would have nothing left in common with the Church of Jesus Christ. They do not see that if they were to reach their goal, it would amount to the destruction of the Church.

Henri de Lubac, S.J., pointed this out with forceful and penetrating words:
“One becomes conscious that the Church is confronted with a grave crisis. In the name of a “new” Church, a “postconciliar” Church, some people are attempting to found another Church than that of Jesus Christ: an anthropocentric society, which is threatened by an ‘immanentist apostasy’[in spite of his protestations to the contrary, that is exactly Francis’ approach] and which can be drawn into a movement of general surrender under the cloak of rejuvenation ecuмenism, or adaptation.”
From a speech given at the World Congress of Theology in Toronto (August, 1967)


Chapter 3, False Idea of a Middle Way  
 
-excerpt-

All disciplinary authority, all obedience to the bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teachings of the holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to a pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances.

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber

Note the conclusion of extreme Modernism. [last sentence]

“In the final analysis, celebration versus populum is a turning towards man, and away from God.”

The conclusion at the end of the book about the “meal table” and the “priest and altar facing the people” and the “communal meal as opposed to sacrifice.”

Twelfth Question

Why is the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice less evident when the priest is facing the people?

A counter-question: Since experts concede that today’s use of the altar facing the people cannot be legitimized by any reference to ancient custom (i.e., that such an altar had actually been used by the early Christians), why can we not accept the inevitable conclusion drawn from this insight and remove all the “meal table” altars that have been set up with surprising uniformity all around the world?
 
The answer to this latter question is very obvious: it is the newly created understanding of the nature of the Mass and the Eucharist, which differs markedly from the traditional one.

The deliberate purpose is to avoid giving the impression that the “Holy Table,” as the altar is called in the Eastern Churches, is, in fact, a sacrificial altar, an altar on which to offer the Holy Sacrifice. This is the most likely reason why the contemporary altar is usually prepared in a manner reminiscent of a table set for a formal family dinner: there is the (single) vase with flowers and two or three candles. The candles are mostly grouped at the table’s “left side,” while the bouquet of flowers are placed at the opposite end.

This asymmetrical arrangement is deliberate: what is to be avoided here is the creation of a focal point that in the past was created by the altar cross at the center of the altar and

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

the candlesticks placed on its right and left side. After all, the current aim is to make the altar into a meal table.

You stand before an altar on which a sacrifice is to be offered. You do not stand behind it. This simple concept was even apparent to the priest offering a sacrifice in pagan times. The priest faced the image of the god in the temple’s inner sanctuary, the god to whom the sacrifice was being offered. This basic approach was quite similar to what occurred in the Temple of Jerusalem. The priest whose task it was to offer the animal sacrifice stood before the “Table of the Lord” (Mal. 1:12), as the great altar in the center of the temple yard was called, facing the inner temple where the Ark of the Covenant was kept in the Holy of Holies, the place which was the abode of the Most High (see Ps. 16:17).

A meal takes place with the head of the family sitting among the members of his family, or to use a different term, within the family circle. A sacrifice, however, is offered using a liturgy specifically created for that purpose; and it is offered inside or in front of a sacred place (which could be a sacred tree). Again, this basic concept applies to all religions. The liturgy is raised above the people; its proper place is in front of the people, in front of the altar, before God’s countenance.

Throughout history, people have turned in the direction of the one for whom the sacrifice was intended. They did not turn in the direction of their fellow men. How the early Church thought about this matter is described by Origen, in his explanations of the Book of Numbers (10:2): “The person standing before the altar indicates through his position that he is engaged in priestly functions. It is the priest’s office to pray for the forgiveness of the people’s sins.” Unfortunately, this is a perception that is of little consequence in today’s world, where our awareness of sin and of our sinful state seems to have been largely lost.

It is commonly known that Luther rejected the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice. He thought Mass to serve the primary

The Altar Facing the People

purpose of preaching the Word of God, with the ‘Abendmahl,’ the commemorative meal, to follow—which serves to explain why he called for the already cited turning of the liturgist to face the congregation.

While it is true that Catholic theologians generally do not directly deny the nature of the Mass as the offering of a sacrifice, a number of them do insist that the sacrifice should not be its central purpose; and that instead, the concept of the communal meal be emphasized during the celebration of the Mass. This they do primarily for ecuмenical reasons, so as not to offend the Protestants; apparently, they don’t mind offending the sensibilities of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which believe that the nature of the Divine Liturgy can never be anything else but the offering of the Sacrifice.

A real change in the contemporary perception of the purpose of the Mass and the Eucharist will occur only when the table altars are removed and Mass is again celebrated at the high altar; when the purpose of the Mass is again seen as an act of adoration and glorification of God and of offering thanks for His blessings, for our salvation and for the promise of the heavenly life to come, and as the mystical reenactment of the Lord’s sacrifice on the cross.

We have already pointed out that this does not mean that the Liturgy of the Word cannot or should not be conducted away from the altar, at the sedilia or the lectionary, just as has been done during pontifical Masses. But all prayers should be said facing East, that is, in the direction of the image of Christ in the apse and of the cross on the altar.

Since, during our pilgrimage here on earth, we are unable to understand the true magnificence of the mystery being celebrated, let alone to see Christ Himself and the “community of heaven,” it is not enough to simply talk about the solemn character of the Sacrifice of the Mass; rather, we must do everything we can to demonstrate the magnificence of the event to the people—through the celebration itself, and

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

through the artistic decoration of the church, above all of its altar.

We can apply what Dionysius the Areopagite has said in his book, About the Holy Names (1, 4), about the “holy veils” and how they apply to both the event of the cult itself and to the images. The “holy veils,” he says,
conceal from us that which is spiritual and what from the next world is present in this world. They give image and form to that which has neither form nor image. ..but later, when we have become perpetual and immortal and have found our rest in Christ, we shall forever be, as Scripture says, with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:17), totally consumed by beholding His real image.

Our discussion should have established that the practice of the priest facing the people during the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice cannot be docuмented anywhere, from any source—until Martin Luther, that is—and that there is no archaeological evidence to support it, either.

The actual expression versus populum (facing the people) first appears in an official text in the “The Rite to be Used When Celebrating the Mass,” which is part of the Missale Romanum revised by order of the Council of Trent under Pope St. Pius V, published in 1570. Section V, 3 of this text addresses the situation of “the altar facing East [not towards the apse of the church but] towards the people” (altare sit ad orientem, versus populum), a situation which, as we have already mentioned, applies to a number of old churches in Rome.

The emphasis of this passage is on the term ad orientem, a fact that is today conveniently ignored. In the text, the phrase versus populum is but an attribute relating to the immediately following instruction, which says that in this particular case

The Altar Facing the People

the celebrant, when offering his Dominus vobiscuм, need not turn around (non vertit humeros ad altare), because he is already facing the people he is addressing. The priest’s position of standing “behind the altar,” which occurred in some Roman basilicas, led, as we have already mentioned, the priests of the German Catholic youth movement of the 1920s to the erroneous conclusion that this was a practice observed by the early Christians, a practice that had somehow survived in Rome.

Just as in the Western Church, celebration versus populum has never existed in the Eastern Church—there is not even a term that could be used to describe it. It is worth mentioning in this connection that during concelebration (which, as we know, has a long tradition in the Orthodox Church), the main celebrant stands, as always, with his back to the people, while the co-celebrating priests position themselves to his left and right. In no case, however, do they stand at the altar’s back side, that is, at its East side.

However, we must not hide the fact that even in the Eastern Churches there have been movements, some of them continuing, that would have the liturgy celebrated facing the people or at least to place the altar in front of the iconostasis. The perils associated with such changes and their effect on the proper conduct of worship were clearly recognized by the Patriarch Tichon of Moscow in 1921. Responding to the reforms advocated and practiced by some priests after the Russian Revolution, he wrote in a pastoral letter addressed to all bishops in his country:

All this is done under the pretext that the liturgy has to be adjusted to meet the demands of our time, to revitalize our worship, and thus to attract the faithful and bring them back into our churches. We withhold our blessing for violations of this kind, from the self-styled activities of a few individuals conducting their own form of litur-

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

gical worship services. We do not give our blessing, because we cannot do this in good conscience. The divine beauty of our liturgy, as it has been set down by the Church in her ritual manuals, her rubrics and her instructions, must remain intact and inviolate in the Russian Orthodox Church, because they are our greatest and most holy possession.

Time has proven the Patriarch right. The fact that the Russian Orthodox Church still exists, that she is, indeed, flourishing, is due primarily to her faithfully maintaining and cultivating her traditional liturgy.
The deciding issue concerning the position of the priest at the altar is, as we have said, the nature of the Mass as a sacrificial offering. The person who is doing the offering is facing the one who is receiving the offering; thus, he stands before the altar, positioned ad Dominum, facing the Lord.

If, nowadays, the aim is to emphasize the aspect of the communal meal during the “Eucharistic Feast” by celebrating versus populum, this aim is not being met, at least not in the way some might have hoped. The new arrangement has the “meal leader” positioned at the table, by himself. The other “meal participants” are situated in the nave, or in the “auditorium,” not directly connected to the “meal table.”

In small groups, it has become increasingly popular to have all participants stand around the altar in a circle, a practice that serves to completely destroy the meaning of the Mass as a sacrificial offering. The best way to correct this is to do what has been done since time immemorial: to join the priest as he “faces the Lord,” that is, to face in the same direction.

Our Faith holds that holy Mass is more than just a communal meal celebrated in memory of Jesus of Nazareth. The central factor is not that a community is brought together and that we experience a sense of community—although the

The Altar Facing the People

importance of such an experience should not be underestimated (1 Cor. l0:17)—but the liturgical worship of God.

The focus must forever be on God, not man. This has always meant that everyone turn towards Him in prayer, rather than that the priest face the people. From this insight, we must draw the necessary conclusion and admit that the celebration versus populum is, in fact, an error. In the final analysis, celebration versus populum is a turning towards man, and away from God.

http://prayer-links.blogspot.com/p/the-reform-ofthe-roman-liturgy-by.html

The Creed of the Whole and Undivided Church as Given by the Apostles
+

Saint Irenaeus, AGAINST HERESIES, BOOK I CHAP. X. - UNITY OF THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD. 180 A.D.

{ note that St. Irenaeus is the first to record the creed later called the apostles creed – with a lot more than we usually see }

I. The Church: all true Loving Catholic Apostolic Orthodox true brethren and benefactors each of us holding You Christ Jesus Our Only Lord and Saviour the Head directly, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith; in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator, Framer, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents and the birth from a virgin, and the passion and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] parousia from heaven in the same flesh in which he suffered, in the glory of the Father, “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning of their Christian course and others from their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. AS I HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED, THE CHURCH,

having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully, preserves it. She also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world { Jerusalem, the mother of all the Churches is here referred to }. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will anyone of, the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little, diminish it.

3 It does not follow because men are endowed
with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter of the faith itself, and should conceive of some other God, besides Him who is the Creator, Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe ( as if He were not sufficient for them ), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten.

…while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.


(Pg.) 332


(Pg.) 497

Book 4 Chapter XXVI Section 4.

( Concerning how we act towards heretics – the evolutionary Gnostics )

From all such persons, therefore, it behoves us to keep aloof,…but to adhere to…the doctrine of the Apostles.

Link is here: Matthew 12th Chapter

See it at the link, it is much easier to read, the original sets things off differently.

ST. MATTHEW 12:

Pg. 22

A man with a withered hand

9. And when he had passed on from that place he entered their ѕуηαgσgυє. 10. And m behold, a man with a withered hand was there. And they asked him, saying, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” that they might accuse him. 11. But he said to them, n “What man is there among you who, if he has a single sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12. How much better is a man than a sheep! Therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13. Then he said to the man, “Stretch forth thy hand.” And he stretched it forth, and it was restored, as sound as the other. 14. But the Pharisees 2 out and took counsel against him, how they might do away with him.

The Mercy of Jesus

15. Then, knowing this, Jesus withdrew 3 from the place; o and many followed him and he cured them all, 16. and warned them not to make him known; 17. that what was spoken through Isaias the prophet might be fulfilled, who said, 18. Behold, p my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will declare judgment to the Gentiles. 19. He will not wrangle, nor cry aloud, neither will anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoking wick he will not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory; 21. and in his name will the Gentiles hope.

Blasphemy of the Pharisees

22. Then there was brought to him a possessed man who was blind and dumb; q and he cured him so that he spoke and saw. 23, And all the crowds were amazed, and they said, “Can this be the Son of David?” 24. But the Pharisees, r hearing this, said, 4 “This man does not cast out devils except by Beelzebub, the prince of devils.”

25. And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, s “Every kingdom divided, against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house, divided against itself will not stand. 26. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? 27. And if I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the has come 5 upon you. 29. Or, how can anyone enter the strong man’s house, and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then he will plunder his house.

i 1 Kgs. 21, 6.—j Lev. 24, 5-9—k Num. 28, 9.—l

Matt. 9, 13; Os. 6, 6.—m 9—14: Mark 3, 1-6; Luke

6, 6-11; 14, 3-5.—n Deut. 22, 4—o Mark 3, 7-12.— p Isa. 42, 1-4.— q 22-24: Luke 11, 14f.—r Matt. 9, 32-34; Mark 3, 22.—s 25-29: Mark 3, 23-27; Luke, 11, 17-22.

1-Ver. 8. Jesus does not make use of His. sovereign power to abrogate the Sabbath Law, but He teaches that it should be interpreted in a reasonable way. Cf. Mark 2, 24- 26 (52) and notes.

2-Ver. 14. Cf. Mark 3, 6 (52). The Pharisees combine with the Herodians to put,’ Jesus to death.

3-Ver. 15-21. Jesus withdrew: He doubtless gave up ѕуηαgσgυє preaching for a time. The” prohibition against making known His miracles, usually to be accoulited for by His desire to avoid the over-excitement which kept people from giving proper attention to His preaching, was probably due in this case to the wish of avoiding conflict with the Pharisees. His meekness recalls to St. Matthew the messianic prediction about the Servant of the Lord, in Isa, 42, 1-4 (857).

4-Ver. 24. The Scribes who charged that our Lord’s supernatural works were to be attributed to the devil were from Jerusalem, according to Mark 3, 22 (53).

5-Ver. 28. The has come: the victory of Jesus over the demons indicated that He was the Messias. The king was already gathering His people.

Pg. 23

30. He who is not with me is against me, t and he who does not gather with me scatters.

31. “Therefore I say to you, u that every kind of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit,1 it will not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come. 33. Either make the tree good and its fruit good, v or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for by the fruit the tree is known. 34. You brood of vipers, how can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35. The good man from his good treasure brings forth good things; and the evil man from his evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36. But I tell you, that of every idle word 2 men speak, they shall give account on the day of judgment. 37. For by thy words thou wilt be justified, and by thy words thou wilt be condemned.”

The Sign of Jonas

38. Then certain of the Scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Master, we would see a sign from thee.” 39. But he answered and said to them, w “An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign, 3 and no sign shall be given it but the sign of Jonas the prophet. 40, For even as Jonas was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, 41. The men of x Nineve will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonas, and behold, a greater than Jonas is here. 42. The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; Y for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

43. z “But when the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he roams through dry places in search of rest, and finds none. 44. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house which I left’; and when he has come to it, he finds the place unoccupied, swept and decorated. 45. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there; a and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be with this evil generation also.”

Jesus and His Brethren

46, While he was still speaking b to the crowds, his mother and his brethren were standing outside, seeking to speak to him. 47. And someone said to him, “Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are standing outside, seeking thee.” 48. But he answered and said to him who told him, “Who is my mother and who are my brethren?” 49. And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said, “Behold my mother and my brethren!

50. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

t Luke 11, 23.—u 3lf: Mark 3, 28-30; Luke 12, 10.

—v Luke 6, 43-45.—w 39-42: Mark 5, 116; Luke 11,

29-32; Matt. 16, 4; 1 Cor. 1, 22.—x Jonas 3, 5.—y 3

Kgs. 10, 1-10.—z 43-45: Luke 11, 24-36.—a 2 Pet.

2, 20.—b 46-50: Mark 3, 31-35; Luke 8, 19-21.—c 1-

15: Mark 4, 1-12; Luke 8, 4-10.

1-Ver. 32. The sin against the Holy Spirit is to ascribe to the devil the works of the Holy Spirit. One who thus attacks directly this source of all grace, rejects the source of salvation. It is morally impossible that he should ever meet the conditions for absolution.

2-Ver. 36. An idle word is one which profits neither the speaker nor the hearer. If the word is merely useless, its utterance is not seriously wrong.

3-Var. 39. Jesus refuses a sign asked for by the incredulous, to be given under conditions fixed by themselves. He will, however, when the time has come, give them the sign of Jonas, that is, the Resurrection.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Verse 30. “He who is not with me is against me, t and he who does not gather with me scatters.” Is the complete condemnation of Modernism.

t Luke 11, 23. quotes the same.

This below is the complete condemnation of the docuмents and Practices of Vatican II, especially the Blaspheming of the Holy Spirit by Apostate Impostor John Paul II at Assisi where he blamed the entire VIOLATION OF THE FIRST COMMANDMENT THROUGHOUT THE ASSISI ABOMINATION IN 2002 on the Holy Spirit .

FOR THE TAPE ON ASSISI SEE: go to http://rhondasnando.blogspot.com/2013/02/assisi-abomination-of-desolation.html

then go to part 6 at at 19:18-19:54 of 28:25 of part 6 and at 2:23:00-2:23:36 of 2:31:48 of the whole tape which is where John Paul II the Apostate blasphemes the Holy Spirit. His statement transcribed is: “That is what the scripture says, the Spirit is a blowing. May the Holy Spirit today blow – speak to the hearts of all of us here present as the wind symbolizes. Lets listen all of us to the words of the Spirit.” After that go back and see the entire 2 hours and 23 minutes before he says that. If you believe that what is shown has anything to do with the Christian faith or true Catholic religion or the Holy Spirit, then you are not a Christian nor a Catholic. It is sheer Satanic Apostasy.

Immediately after this supreme act of Satanic Apostasy, John Paul the Apostate's physical condition got worse and continued to worsen until he died by the Judgment of God and went to the Judgment of the Just Judge, Jesus Christ. Any idea that the heresies of John Paul II the Apostate were only prudential and that somehow juridically he still occupied the throne of Peter was absolutely destroyed by this singular act. The Vatican – Babylon – has fallen, see Apocalypse 18. The Church always knew that one day, in some way, this must absolutely come to pass since it is prophesied by the Risen Christ.

This Bible is the late 1940's approved Catholic CCD Critical Greek comparison in the notes with the Vulgate Latin translation. Note the theological note on Ver. 32 – blaspheming the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, just as Jesus Christ said it wouldn't – the definition is given in the note (1. ) of what that is. That definition fits Impostor John Paul II's statement at Assisi blaming the Holy Spirit for their willful and knowing violation of the First Commandment. This whole Assisi Ecuмenism is the foreseen on purpose method and goal of Modernism and is the spiritual (preternatural to be exact) Mark of the Beast that will never be forgiven that the Apostates at the Vatican have given themselves over to. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT UPON PAIN OF ETERNAL DAMNATION.




31. “Therefore I say to you, u that every kind of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, 1 it will not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come. 33. Either make the tree good and its fruit good, v or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for by the fruit the tree is known. 34. You brood of vipers, how can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35. The good man from his good treasure brings forth good things; and the evil man from his evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36. But I tell you, that of every idle word 2 men speak, they shall give account on the day of judgment. 37. For by thy words thou wilt be justified, and by thy words thou wilt be condemned.”

note 1-Ver. 32. The sin against the Holy Spirit is to ascribe to the devil the works of the Holy Spirit. One who thus attacks directly this source of all grace, rejects the source of salvation. It is morally impossible that he should ever meet the conditions for absolution.

43. z “But when the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he roams through dry places in search of rest, and finds none. 44. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house which I left’; and when he has come to it, he finds the place unoccupied, swept and decorated. 45. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there; a and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be with this evil generation also.”

This evil generation, in the Greek generation is 'genea' and in the Latin is 'generationi.' It is not limited to one human generation. In this case it is every Jєω, unrepentant of the crimes of Deicide and Perfidy until the Judgement at Christ's Second Coming and forever in eternity after that. For a Jєω to repent of Judaism, which is built on Deicide and Perfidy and not at all on the Old Testament, and abjure all connection to Judaism and come to Christ and confess their guilt and be Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and be forgiven of Deicide and Perfidy is possible and in fact we hope they do, but they are no longer Jєωs then at all, at that point they have become Christians only.

z 43-45: Luke 11, 24-36. Luke repeats the same as Matthew

Matthew 15:
14 Let them alone: *they are blind, and leaders of the blind.  And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.
19 For from the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.


Matthew 12:
30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
31 *Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.



It is clear from the below that anyone calling himself Pope and supposedly elected etc., IF THEY TEACH ERROR are not in possession of the Office of Pope and are an Impostor. NOTE: that both the Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX - ON CURRENT ERRORS and the SYLLABUS OF ERRORS - Issued by Pope Pius IX were issued on the same date: December 8, 1864, to be read and obeyed together.

The Last 6 Antipopes John XXIII through Francis and the Vatican II False Council – are all convicted by this as imposters and Antipopes and holding no valid office of Pope nor of teacher of the faith.

Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius IX
ON CURRENT ERRORS

(Quanta Cura)

December 8, 1864

To Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops having favor and Communion of the Holy See
Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction

1. With how great care and pastoral vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, fulfilling the duty and office committed to them by the Lord Christ Himself in the person of most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, of feeding the lambs and the sheep, have never ceased sedulously to nourish the Lord’s whole flock with words of faith and with salutary doctrine, and to guard it from poisoned pastures, is thoroughly known to all, and especially to you, Venerable Brethren. And truly the same Our Predecessors, asserters of justice, being especially anxious for the salvation of souls, had nothing ever more at heart than by their most wise Letters and Constitutions to unveil and condemn all those heresies and errors which, being adverse to our Divine Faith, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to purity of morals and to the eternal salvation of men, have frequently excited violent tempests. and have miserably afflicted both Church and State. For which cause the same Our Predecessors have, with Apostolic fortitude, constantly resisted the nefarious enterprises of wicked men, who, like raging waves of the sea foaming out their own confusion, and promising liberty whereas they are the slaves of corruption, have striven by their deceptive Opinions and most pernicious writings to raze the foundations of the Catholic religion and of civil society, to remove from among men all virtue and justice, to deprave persons, and especially inexperienced youth, to lead it into the snares of error, and at length to tear it from the bosom of the Catholic Church.

Grievous Errors Flourish

2. But now, as is well known to you, Venerable Brethren, already scarcely had We been elevated to this Chair of Peter (by the hidden counsel of Divine Providence, certainly by no merit of Our own), when, seeing with the greatest grief of Our soul a truly awful storm excited by so many evil opinions, and (seeing also) the most grievous calamities never sufficiently to be deplored which overspread the Christian people from so many errors, according to the duty of Our Apostolic Ministry, and following the illustrious example of Our Predecessors, We raised Our voice, and in many published Encyclical Letters and Allocutions delivered in Consistory, and other Apostolic Letters, We condemned the chief errors of this most unhappy age, and We excited your admirable episcopal vigilance, and We again and again admonished and exhorted all sons of the Catholic Church, to Us most dear, that they should altogether abhor and flee from the contagion of so dire a pestilence. And especially in Our first Encyclical Letter written to you on November 9, 1846, and in two Allocutions delivered by Us in Consistory, the one on December 9, 1854, and the other on June 9, 1862, We condemned the monstrous portents of opinion which prevail especially in this age, bringing with them the greatest loss of souls and detriment of civil society itself; which are grievously opposed also, not only to the Catholic Church and her salutary doctrine and venerable rights, but also to the eternal natural law engraven by God in all men’s hearts, and to right reason; and from which almost all other errors have their origin.

We Must Maintain Vigilance

3. But, although We have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to Us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that We again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world—not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.1

Liberty of Conscience and Worship a Grave Error

For you well know, Venerable Brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of naturalism, as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity,2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition;3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”4

Unjust Civil Law Replaces Church Teaching

4. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of Divine Revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circuмstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circuмstances) follows no other law in its actions except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? For this reason, men of the kind pursue with bitter hatred the Religious Orders, although these have deserved extremely well of Christendom, civilization and literature, and cry out that the same have no legitimate reason for being permitted to exist; and thus (these evil men) applaud the calumnies of heretics. For, as Pius VI, Our Predecessor, taught most wisely, “the abolition of regulars is injurious to that state in which the Evangelical counsels are openly professed; it is injurious to a method of life praised in the Church as agreeable to Apostolic doctrine; it is injurious to the illustrious founders, themselves, whom we venerate on our altars, who did not establish these societies but by God’s inspiration.”5 And (these wretches) also impiously declare that permission should be refused to citizens and to the Church, “whereby they may openly give alms for the sake of Christian charity”; and that the law should be abrogated “whereby on certain fixed days servile works are prohibited because of God’s worship,” and on the most deceptive pretext that the said permission and law are opposed to the principles of the best public economy. Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal errors of Communism and Socialism, they assert that “domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education.” By which impious opinions and machinations these most deceitful men chiefly aim at this result, viz., that the salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church may be entirely banished from the instruction and education of youth, and that the tender and flexible minds of young men may be infected and depraved by every most pernicious error and vice. For all who have endeavored to throw into confusion things both sacred and secular, and to subvert the right order of society, and to abolish all rights, human and divine, have always (as We above hinted) devoted all their nefarious schemes, devices and efforts to deceiving and depraving incautious youth and have placed all their hope in its corruption. For which reason they never cease by every wicked method to assail the clergy, both secular and regular, from whom (as the surest monuments of history conspicuously attest) so many great advantages have abundantly flowed to Christianity, civilization and literature, and to proclaim that “the clergy, as being hostile to the true and beneficial advance of science and civilization, should be removed from the whole charge and duty of instructing and educating youth.”

Church Authority Subverted by Civil Authorities

5. Others meanwhile, reviving the wicked and so often condemned inventions of innovators, dare with signal impudence to subject to the will of the civil authority the supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See given to her by Christ Himself, and to deny all those rights of the same Church and See which concern matters of the external order. For they are not ashamed of affirming “that the Church’s laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power’s sanction and approbation, or at least its consent; that the Apostolic Constitutions,6 whereby secret societies are condemned (whether an oath of secrecy be or be not required in such societies), and whereby their frequenters and favorers are smitten with anathema—have no force in those regions of the world wherein associations of the kind are tolerated by the civil government; that the excommunication pronounced by the Council of Trent and by Roman Pontiffs against those who assail and usurp the Church’s rights and possessions rests on a confusion between the spiritual and temporal orders, and (is directed) to the pursuit of a purely secular good; that the Church can decree nothing which binds the conscience of the faithful in regard to their use of temporal things; that the Church has no right of restraining by temporal punishments those who violate her laws; that it is conformable to the principles of sacred theology and public law to assert and claim for the civil government a right of property in those goods which are possessed by the Church, by the Religious Orders and by other pious establishments.” Nor do they blush openly and publicly to profess the maxim and principle of heretics from which arise so many perverse opinions and errors. For they repeat that the “ecclesiastical power is not by
divine right distinct from, and independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and independence cannot be preserved without the civil power’s essential rights being assailed and usurped by the Church.” Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession, assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ Our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

Formal Condemnation of These Errors

6. Amid, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, We, well remembering Our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for Our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is entrusted to Us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up Our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by Our Apostolic Authority, We reprobate, proscribe and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this Letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

Many Openly Deny Christ Worldwide

7. And besides these things, you know very well, Venerable Brethren, that in these times the haters of truth and justice and most bitter enemies of our religion, deceiving the people and maliciously lying, disseminate sundry and other impious doctrines by means of pestilential books, pamphlets and newspapers dispersed over the whole world. Nor are you ignorant also that in this our age some men are found who, moved and excited by the spirit of Satan, have reached to that degree of impiety as not to shrink from denying our Ruler and Lord Jesus Christ, and from impugning His Divinity with wicked pertinacity. Here, however, We cannot but extol you, Venerable Brethren, with great and deserved praise, for not having failed to raise with all zeal your episcopal voice against impiety so great.

Kingdoms Rest on the Foundation of Faith

8. Therefore, in this Our Letter We again most lovingly address you, who, having been called unto a part of Our solicitude, are to Us, among Our grievous distresses, the greatest solace, joy and consolation because of the admirable religion and piety wherein you excel and because of that marvelous love, fidelity and dutifulness whereby, bound as you are to Us and to this Apostolic See in most harmonious affection, you strive strenuously and sedulously to fulfill your most weighty episcopal ministry. For from your signal pastoral zeal We expect that, taking up the sword of the spirit which is the word of God, and strengthened by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, you will, with redoubled care, each day more anxiously provide that the faithful entrusted to your charge “abstain from noxious verbiage, which Jesus Christ does not cultivate because it is not His Father’s plantation.” 7 Never cease also to inculcate on the said faithful that all true felicity flows abundantly upon man from our august religion and its doctrine and practice; and that “happy is that people whose God is the Lord.” (Ps. 143:15). Teach that “kingdoms rest on the foundation of the Catholic Faith;”8 and that “nothing is so deadly, so hastening to a fall, so exposed to all danger (as that which exists) if, believing this alone to be sufficient for us, that we receive free will at our birth, we seek nothing further from the Lord; that is, if forgetting our Creator we abjure His power that we may display our freedom.”9 And again, do not fail to teach “that the royal power was given not only for the governance of the world, but most of all for the protection of the Church”;10 and that there is nothing which can be of greater advantage and glory to Princes and Kings than if, as another most wise and courageous Predecessor of Ours, St. Felix, instructed the Emperor Zeno, they “permit the Catholic Church to practice her laws, and allow no one to oppose her liberty. For it is certain that this mode of conduct is beneficial to their interests, viz., that where there is question concerning the causes of God, they study, according to His appointment, to subject the royal will to Christ’s priests, not to raise it above theirs.”11

Pray to the Sacred Heart for World Peace

9. But if always, Venerable Brethren, now most of all amid such great calamities both of the Church and of civil society, amid so great a conspiracy against Catholic interests and this Apostolic See, and so great a mass of errors, it is altogether necessary to approach with confidence the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace in timely aid. Wherefore, We have thought it well to excite the piety of all the faithful in order that, together with Us and you, they may unceasingly pray and beseech the most merciful Father of light and pity with most fervent and humble prayers, and in the fullness of faith flee always to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed us to God in His Blood, and earnestly and constantly supplicate His most sweet Heart, the Victim of most burning love toward us, that He would draw all things to Himself by the bonds of His love, and that all men, inflamed by His most holy love, may walk worthily according to His Heart, pleasing God in all things, bearing fruit in every good work. But since without doubt men’s prayers are more pleasing to God if they reach Him from minds free from all stain, therefore We have determined to open to Christ’s faithful, with Apostolic liberality, the Church’s heavenly treasures committed to Our charge, in order that the said faithful, being more earnestly enkindled to true piety, and cleansed through the Sacrament of Penance from the defilement of their sins, may with greater confidence pour forth their prayers to God and obtain His mercy and grace.

Proclamation of a Jubilee

10. By these Letters, therefore, in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We concede to all and singular the faithful of the Catholic world, a Plenary Indulgence in the form of Jubilee, during the space of one month only for the whole coming year 1865, and not beyond; to be fixed by you, Venerable Brethren, and other legitimate Ordinaries of places, in the very same manner and form in which we granted it at the beginning of Our supreme Pontificate by Our Apostolic Letters in the form of a Brief dated November 20, 1846, and addressed to all your episcopal Order, beginning, “Arcano Divinae Providentiae consilio,” and with all the same faculties which were given by Us in those Letters. We will, however, that all things be observed which were prescribed in the aforesaid Letters, and those things be excepted which We there so declared. And We grant this, notwithstanding anything whatever to the contrary, even things which are worthy of individual mention and derogation. In order, however, that all doubt and difficulty be removed, We have commanded a copy of said Letters be sent you.

Appeal for God’s Mercy through the Virgin Mary

11. “Let us implore,” Venerable Brethren, “God’s mercy from our inmost heart and with our whole mind; because He has Himself added, ‘I will not remove my mercy from them.’ Let us ask and we shall receive; and if there be delay and slowness in our receiving because we have gravely offended, let us knock, because to him that knocketh it shall be opened, if only the door be knocked by our prayers, groans and tears, in which we must persist and persevere, and if the prayer be unanimous . . . let each man pray to God, not for himself alone, but for all his brethren, as the Lord hath taught us to pray.”12 But in order that God may the more readily assent to the prayers and desires of Ourselves, of you and of all the faithful, let us with all confidence employ as our advocate with Him the Immaculate and most holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, who has slain all heresies throughout the world, and who, the most loving Mother of us all, “is all sweet . . . and full of mercy . . . shows herself to all as easily entreated; shows herself to all as most merciful; pities the necessities of all with a most large affection”;13 and standing as a Queen at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety, can obtain from Him whatever she will. Let us also seek the suifrages of the Most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of Paul, his fellow Apostle, and of all the Saints in Heaven, who having now become God’s friends, have arrived at the heavenly Kingdom, and being crowned, bear their palms, and being secure of their own immortality, are anxious for our salvation.

The Apostolic Blessing

12. Lastly, imploring from Our great heart for you from God the abundance of all heavenly gifts, We most lovingly impart the Apostolic Benediction from Our inmost heart, a pledge of Our signal love towards you, to yourselves, Venerable Brethren, and to all the clerics and lay faithful committed to your care.

Given at Rome, from St. Peter’s, the 8th day of December, in the year 1864, the tenth from the Dogmatic Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Mother of God, in the nineteenth year of Our Pontificate.

Pius IX, Pope

NOTES

1. Gregory XVI, Encyclical Letter “Mirari Vos,” 15 August 1832.
2. Ibid.
3. St. Augustine, epistle 105 (166).
4. St. Leo, epistle 14 (133), sect. 2, edit. Ball.
5. Epistle to Cardinal De la Rochefoucault, 10 March 1791.
6. Clement XII, In Eminenti; Benedict XIV, Providas Romanorum;
Pius VII, Ecciesiam; Leo XII, Quo Graviora.
7. St. Ignatius M. to the Philadelphians, 3.
8. St. Celestine, epistle 22 to Synod. Ephes. in Const., p. 1200.
9. St. Innocent. 1, epistle 29 ad Episc. conc. Carthag. in Coust., p. 891.
10. St. Leo, epistle 156 (125).
11. Pius VII, Encyclical Letter, Diu Satis, 15 May 1800.
12. St. Cyprian, epist. 11.
13. St. Bernard, Serm. de duodecim praerogativis B. M. V. ex verbis Apocalyp,






Issued by Pope Pius IX

SYLLABUS OF ERRORS

December 8, 1864

Syllabus of the principal errors of our time, which are censured in the consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other
Apostolical Letters of our Most Hoiy Lord, Pope Pius IX

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND
ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. —Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862.

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied.— Ibid.

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. —Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate Strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.—Ibid., and Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.—Ibid.

6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason, and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man.—Ibid.

7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth. —Ibid.

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM

8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences.—Allocution Sin gulari Quadam, Dec. 9, 1854.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy; and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object.—Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, Gravissimas Inter, Dec. 11, 1862, and Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863.

10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority.—Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.
11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself.—Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science.—Ibid.

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.—Ibid.

14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation.—Ibid.
N.B. To the rationalistic system belong in great part the errors of Anthony GUnther, condemned in the letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne, Eximiam Tuam, June 15, 1857, and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, Dolore Haud Mediocri, April 30,

III. INDIFFERENTISM AND FALSE TOLERANCE

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.— Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862; Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.— Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846.
1860.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.— Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical Noscitis, Dec. 8, 1849.

IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES
Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849; Encyclical Noscitis et Nobiscuм, Dec. 8, 1849; Allocution Singulari Quadam, Dec. 9, 1854; Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863.

V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH
AND HER RIGHTS

19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free; nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights.—Allocution Singulari Quadam, Dec. 9, 1854, etc.

20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. — Allocution Meminit Unusquisque, Sept. 30, 1861.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. — Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.—Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863.

23. Roman Pontiffs and ecuмenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.—Damnatio Mu/tip/ices Inter, June 10, 1851.

24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.—Apostolic Letter Ad Aposto/icae, Aug. 22, 1851.

25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority, granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit.—Ibid.

26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property.—Allocution Nunquam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical Incredibi/i, Sept. 7, 1863.

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman Pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs.—Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862.

28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even Letters Apostolic without the permission of government.—Allocution Nun quam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856.

29. Favors granted by the Roman Pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government.—Ibid.

30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law.—Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851.

31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See.—Allocution Nunquam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852.

32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government.—Letter to the Bishop of Monreale, Singularis Nobisque, Sept. 29, 1864.

33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions.—Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863.

34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages.—Apostolic Letter AdApostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851.

35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city.—Ibid.

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority can assume this principle as the basis of its acts.—Ibid.

37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman Pontiff and altogether separated, can be established.— Allocution Multis Gravibusque, Dec. 17, 1860.

38. The Roman Pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.—Apostolic Letter Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851.

VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED
BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH

39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is
endowed with a certain right not circuмscribed by any limits.— Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the wellbeing and interests of society.—Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849.

41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of exsequatur, but also that of appeal, called appellatio ab abusu.— Apostolic Letter Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851

42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.—Ibid.

43. The secular power has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest.—Allocution Multis Gravibusque, Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution In Consistoriali, Nov. 1, 1850.

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine Sacraments and the dispositions necessary
for receiving them.—Allocutions In Consistoriali, Nov. 1, 1850,
and Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862.

45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers.— Allocutions Quibus Luctuosissimis, Sept. 5, 1851, and In Consistoriali, Nov. 1, 1850.

46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority.—Allocution Nunquam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.—Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, cuм Non Sine, July 14, 1864.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.—Ibid.

49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman Pontiff.—Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862.

50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See.—Allocution Nun quam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856.

51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops.—Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852; Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851.

52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission .—Allocution Nun quam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856.

53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power.— Allocutions Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852; Probe Memineritis, Jan. 22, 1855; cuм Saepe, July 26, 1855.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions ofjurisdiction.—Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852.

VII. ERRORS CONCERNING
NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and
it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.—Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862.

57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority.—Ibid.

58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accuмulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.—Ibid.; Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863.

59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right.—Allocution Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862.

60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces.—Ibid.

61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right.—Allocution Iamdudum Cernimus, March
18, 1861.

62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed.—Allocution Novos et Ante, Sept. 28, 1860.

63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.—Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution Quibusque Vestrum, Oct. 4, 1847; Noscitis et Nobiscuм, Dec. 8, 1849; Letter Apostolic cuм Catholica.

64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country.—Allocution Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849.
VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament cannot be at all tolerated.—Apostolic Letter Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851.

66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the Sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone.—Ibid.

67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble,
and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by
the civil authority.—Ibid.; Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27,
1852.

68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed.— Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851.

69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State.—Apostolic Letter AdApostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power.—Ibid.

71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.—Ibid.

72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void.—Ibid.

73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a Sacrament, or that there is no contract if the Sacrament be excluded.—Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852, Multis Gravibusque, Dec. 17, 1860.

74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals.—Encyclical Qui Pluri bus, Nov. 9, 1846; Damnatio Multiplices Inter, June 10, 1851, Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852.
N.B.—To the preceding questions may be referred two other errors regarding the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of marriage over that of virginity. These have been stigmatized: the first in the Encyclical Qui Pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846; the second. in the Letter Apostolic Multiplices inter. June 10. 1851.

IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER
OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF

75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided among themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power.—Ad Apostolicae, Aug. 22, 1851.

76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church.—Allocutions Quibus quantisque, April 20, 1849, Si Semper Antea, May 20, 1850.

N.B.—Besides these errors, explicitly censured, very many others are implicitly condemned by the doctrine propounded and established, which all Catholics are bound most firmly to hold touching the temporal sovereignty of the Roman Pontiff. This doctrine is clearly stated in the Allocutions Quibus Quantisque, April 20, 1849, and Si SemperAntea, May 20, 1850; Letter Apostolic cuм Catholica Ecciesia, March 26, 1860; Allocutions, Noves etAntea, Sept. 28, 1860; Iamdudum Cernimus, March 18, 1861; Maxima Quidem, June 9, 1862.

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO
MODERN LIBERALISM

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution Nemo Vestrum, July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution Acerbissimum, Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution Nun quam Fore, Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, Liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution Iamdudum Cernimus, March 18, 1861.
Pius IX, Pope

1950 Catholic Dictionary

Impriniatur

SAMUEL CARDINAL STRITCH

Archbishop of Chicago

Chicago, August 5, 1950

For articles contributed to the dictionary credit must be given to:

Rev. Barnabas Mary Ahern, C.P., S.T.L., S.S.L.
Rev. George F. Aschenbrenner, M.A., S.T.L.
Sr. M. Claudia Carlin, I.H.M., M.A.L.S.
Rev. John J. Fahey, M.A., S.T.D.
Rev. Arthur C. Haubold, M.A.
Rev. Thomas Kaveney, M.A.
Rev. BernardJ. Le Frois, S.V.D., S.T.L., S.S.L
Rev. Conrad Louis, 0.S.B., S.T.L.
Rev. Brendan McGrath, O.S.B., M.A., S.T.D.
Rev. Richard Rosemeyer, M.A., S.T.L.
Sr. Estelle Scully, S.P., B.A.
Rev. Leon Wagner, M.A., S.T.L.

Apostasy. The total rejection of the Christian faith by a baptized person. Hence, a Catholic who becomes an atheist or a rationalist would be an apostate. By becoming an apostate a Catholic is ipso facto excommunicated, and is to be refused Christian burial if he dies without showing signs of repentance. Apostasy (a total rejection of the faith) differs from heresy, which is a denial of one or another truth of faith. Saint Paul (2 Thess. 2:3) warns that the second coming of Christ will be preceded by a great apostasy. Christ seems to have referred to this same apostasy in Matt. 24:11-12 and Luke 18:8.

Apostate. One guilty of apostasy (which see).

Modernism. In general, an exaggerated love of what is modern or novel. As a theological term, modernism designates the heresy, or rather the collection of errors, which rose in the Church at the beginning of the 20th century under the influence of men like Loisy (France), Tyrrel (England), and Buonaiuti (Italy). Under Pope Pius X, two famous docuмents were issued against modernism: (1) a decree of the Holy Office, Lamentabili, of July 3, 1907, and (2) the encyclical Pascendi, of September 8, 1907. The former is a list of 65 condemned propositions of the modernists; the latter is an analysis of the theories of the modernists in contrast with the philosophy and doctrine of true Christianity.

Among the errors of the modernists’ teaching were the following: (1) It is impossible to prove the existence of a God distinct from the world. (2) “Revelation” is only a natural product of the subconscious, and dogma is only an expression of the subconscious, subject to continual evolution. (3) The Bible is not a divinely inspired book, and it ought to be studied the same way as any human book, which is likely to contain errors. (4) There is no need to reconcile science and faith. One may deny as a scientist what he believes as a Christian. (5) The divinity of Christ was not taught by the Gospels, but is the product of an evolution in Christian thinking over the centuries. (6) The idea of a redemptive value in the death of Christ originated with Saint Paul. (7) Christ instituted neither the Church nor the primacy of Peter. The present organization of the Church is purely the result of historical contingencies, and could be completely changed.

Modernism is an amalgam of verbal Catholicism and naturalistic rationalism. The modernists did not wish to abandon any of the traditional statements of Catholic teaching. But these statements were to be given a new rationalistic meaning. Pius X foresaw that modernism would lead to an abolition of all religion and gradually to atheism.

__________________________________________________________________


The Catholic Encyclopedia
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Apostasy

Apostasy a fide, or perfidiæ

Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc.

__________________________________________________________________

ipso facto, the last 6 Antipopes, John XXIII - Franics are Apostates and excommunicate and not Catholic and not Popes - they have professed those other beliefs totally knowingly and willfully -- unlike someone who has the valid defense of not knowing what they were doing, like all who have rejected the V2 Apostasy after they were mislead by it because the episcopal and parish and monastic and ecclesial etc leaders said it was approved. Those episcopal and parish and monastic and ecclesial etc leaders lied to the faithful and are culpable. Christ's straying sheep who were mislead are easily forgiven by Him if they only come to Him and ask. But don't go near V2 anymore. When in doubt or confused by someone, make NO confession in anything you know in your heart is not of Christ.



From the above:

Modernism. ... Pius X foresaw that modernism would lead to an abolition of all religion and gradually to atheism.

Apostasy. Hence, a Catholic who becomes an atheist or a rationalist would be an apostate. By becoming an apostate a Catholic is ipso facto excommunicated,....

Apostasy

Apostasy a fide, or perfidiæ

Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc.

Modernism --> Atheism --> atheism incurs automatic excommunication and that includes Popes before, during or after election. An unbeliever, a non-Christian, an excommunicate from Catholicism: cannot be Pope. See St. Robert Bellarmine and the rest of the Church Doctors.

Gospel fo St. John Chapter 14:30...For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing. Apostasy to Satan precludes all communion with the Lord Jesus Christ and His faithful, which is His Body of faithful.

_________________________________________________________________


This book below is the only one to be approved by the Holy Office as a teaching on the Antichrist, per se, in the last 150 years. There are others on various aspects of Eschatology that do mention the Antichrist.




HISTORY

OF

ANTICHRIST

OR

AN EXPOSITION OF CERTAIN
AND PROBABLE EVENTS WHICH CONCERN THE “MAN OF SIN,” HIS REIGN, HIS TIME, AND END, ACCORDING TO HOLY SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION

by

Rev. P. Huchedé
Professor of Theology at the Grand Seminary of Laval, France

Translated from the French by
J.D.B. [1884]

And none of the wicked shall understand,
but the learned shall understand.
(Dan. 12:10)


Chapter 2- The Action

...

ARTICLE II-CONTEST AND RELIGIOUS SWAY OF ANTICHRIST

...

2. His Apostles

see: http://theantichristhuchede.blogspot.com/2006/05/rev-paschal-huchede-view-of-antichrist_8509.html

In the work of our redemption, the three divine persons of the adorable Trinity manifested themselves. The Son adores the Father; the Holy Ghost gives glory to the Son. And we see that in the mystery of iniquity Antichrist adores Satan and the false prophet glorifies Anti­christ. Hence we have every reason to show that this false prophet will be an individual person and not a collective term to designate the uni­versality of preachers engaged in the service of Antichrist. We can even assert that he will not be a king, nor a general of an army, but a clever apostate, fallen from the episcopal dignity. From being an apostle of the Gospel he will become the first preacher of the false messiah. These conjectures are not devoid of much plausibility. ...(Acosta, Book 2, Ch. 16).

_____________

"...but a clever apostate, fallen from the episcopal dignity. From being an apostle of the Gospel he will become the first preacher of the false messiah." Episcopal dignity refers to the Papacy.


__________________________________________________________________