.
While the material Fr. Hewko presents beginning at 16:10 is most instructive for those with ears to hear, I would recommend paying close attention to the material he presents as an introduction before that point. In fact, I would recommend to those for whom this material might be new, that they would listen to the first 15 minutes of this sermon TWICE before proceeding, and that they ought to look up any key words with which they are unfamiliar or about which they're unsure.
That means, if you are not accustomed to hearing a sermon like this, that you ought to study the words Fr. Hewko uses in the first 15 minutes here, because if you're unsure of particular words he uses here, or if you're unfamiliar with them, you are not going to comprehend the message he is offering you.
At 16:10 he provides some startling news, for he not only accuses the seminary of La Reja in Latin America of teaching Modernism, he provides the specific example of why he is making that accusation. This example is key, and, like the vocabulary used in his first quarter hour, if you don't know who Rudolf Bultmann is, or if you are uninformed regarding the background and implications of
the objectively diabolical teachings of Bultmann, then of course, you just won't want to believe that an SSPX seminary could possibly be teaching heresy, like 'untitled' above said:
I have reasons to no believe that Fr Pagliariani said that.
When 'untitled' makes the obvious typo of leaving the "t" off of
"not," and the curious mistake of attribution to a priest's name which is not to be found in the sermon, we ought then to be more ready to understand the self-contradiction that 'untitled' presents by answering dreamtomorrow's question, "Is there anything you can give for proof or reasons you don't believe he said that?" by admitting, "Excuse me, I can not." IOW, 'untitled' has reasons, but at the same time, 'untitled' has NO reasons.
Remember 'the hermeneutic of continuity'? Most tellingly, it was Rudolf Bultmann who most recently got the ball rolling on this bad track, which Benedict XVI has attempted to push along with a stick.
Exegetes, higher criticism, scriptural deconstruction, de-mythologizing Scripture,
Pascendi domenici gregis, Pope St. Pius X,
Sacrorum Antistitum, the synthesis of all heresy, Rudolf Bultmann, the hermeneutic of continuity, the principle of non-contradiction, "God is immanent",
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand" : if these are not familiar propositions or terms to you, such that you could offhand describe to someone what they mean in a paragraph or two for each term, then you are ignorant of this topic and you will be unable to comprehend the truth of the proposition,
"The SSPX is teaching Modernism in its seminaries." This is the kind of ignorance that +F relies upon when he hopes that his listeners will endure the lies he speaks by saying that
Vat.II itself isn't what's bad, but it's only the 'spirit of Vatican II' that is bad, that is, the misinterpretation of Vat.II, such that it is possible to interpret Vat.II in accord with Tradition. That is a damned lie. And Bishop Fellay, by speaking it, could find himself in hell in eternity for speaking this damned lie and for not repenting of having spoken it.
Do you suppose His Excellency would have stood still and have listened to Fr. Hewko give him this message?
What is the sign by which we can discern that the SSPX is deliberately and specifically teaching Modernism in its seminaries?
Fr. Hewko testifies here in this sermon, that the specific seminarian whom he knows, told him that when he had questioned the rector regarding his pernicious and clearly condemned teachings based on the condemned heresies of Bultmann, and did so in Italian while the other seminarians in the room only spoke Spanish, the Rector's response was to reprimand this seminarian of good will, by telling him to go and get his passport and to pack his belongings, and to leave the seminary immediately. This Rector, Fr. Bouchacort, has not only been defended by Menzingen, but has been PROMOTED to a higher position of power in the Society. (25:)
That, my friends, is what we can know as PROOF that Modernism is being taught in the SSPX seminaries.
Worse than abortion. Worse than murder. Worse than robbing the poor.
-- What is? When the Pope gives recognition to false religions, it is the worst of all sins, as it it a public transgression against the First Commandment.
Where does the SSPX stand up to denounce this enormous crime, this apostasy of our pope? If the Pope were to deny the h0Ɩ0h0αx would +F have a word or two to say about that? If he were to denounce Holo-caustic h0Ɩ0cαųstianity, would +F have something to say about that? If the ADL were to accuse the Pope of "anti-Semitism," would +F have a comment or two?
Rome wants to give us unilateral recognition and tolerance. This is the new poison running in the veins of the new SSPX leadership.
Some members here of CathInfo are okay with that, too. Are YOU one of them? But Fr. Hewko isn't, and according to him,
this is the essential core of the Resistance, to be unwilling to have any manner of acceptance of this unilateral recognition and tolerance from Newrome so long as Newrome has not converted and has not abjure the damnable heresy of Modernism.
This is an excellent sermon.
.
Topic: Father Hewko. Whit Saturday (Read 2890 times)