Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matto on March 09, 2013, 07:26:34 PM
-
This is from a sermon I just listened to:
"No. Vatican II is not part of the constant magesterium. It is not. It is a foreign devilish thing that came into the Church for the purpose of destroying souls, and it has been very effective because millions of souls have gone to Hell in the last forty years."
Edit: I misspelled Father Joseph Pfeiffer's name in the title. Can you fix that, Matthew?
-
How else could Vatican II be explained?
It can't.
-
Well some seem to think that it can be interpreted according to tradition.
-
Well some seem to think that it can be interpreted according to tradition.
No one who is actually thinking could 'think' that.
-
No one who is actually thinking could 'think' that.
The former Pope Benedict XVI seems to believe it and if the doctrinal declaration is legitimate, then Bishop Fellay seems to believe it also. They both think. I think "Father Z" also believes it.
But I guess they could be lying.
-
No one who is actually thinking could 'think' that.
The former Pope Benedict XVI seems to believe it and if the doctrinal declaration is legitimate, then Bishop Fellay seems to believe it also. They both think. I think "Father Z" also believes it.
But I guess they could be lying.
Lying or stupid or just slaves to the council, maybe all of the above. The hermeneutic of continuity is a lie, and you needn't look any further than the way the council has been interpreted by the modern church (eg Assisi) to see that.
-
No one who is actually thinking could 'think' that.
The former Pope Benedict XVI seems to believe it and if the doctrinal declaration is legitimate, then Bishop Fellay seems to believe it also. They both think. I think "Father Z" also believes it.
But I guess they could be lying.
They are, from our point of view lying, but these men who engage in turning their minds into pretzels are building their own sand castles in the sky. They believe their own spin.
The men who were at and defended Vatican II have committed their whole lives to something that is crumbling down in front of them.
-
The hermeneutic of continuity is a lie
Benedict is very smart, so I would not be surprised if he was a liar.
-
There you go.
-
This is from a sermon I just listened to:
"No. Vatican II is not part of the constant magesterium. It is not. It is a foreign devilish thing that came into the Church for the purpose of destroying souls, and it has been very effective because millions of souls have gone to Hell in the last forty years."
Fr. Pfeiffer does not mince words, does he? And that's what is so great about him and all the priests of the resistance--they speak with such consistent clarity because they tell it like it is! There is nothing for them to hide or mask with dizzying contortions and mental gymnastics.
Being a gear-head of sorts, I've personally found it helpful to see Vatican II as a car that was designed from the very beginning to ultimately do one thing: crash.
What person with a modicuм of commonsense or concern for his loved ones would ever want to waste his time and resources trying to tweak this or that component in it in the hopes of making the car--already doomed by design--somehow . . . "drivable"?
Those who take on the mindset of trying to "fix" Vatican II are either being disingenuous (knowing full well ahead of time that it really can't be done but needing a convenient smokescreen nevertheless) or they simply don't get (or accept) the fact that it was an evil council that deserves nothing short of being chucked out and anathematized for good!
-
Well some seem to think that it can be interpreted according to tradition.
In their doctrinal discussions with the Vatican, the Society's theologians pointed out, after citing the relevant texts, their four principal problems - respectively religious liberty, ecclesiology, collegiality and ecuмenism - with the Council.
Rome's primary answer was that, since it is of faith that the Church cannot contradict herself just as God cannot, the perceived contradictions are not real, and an actual continuity exists. That's what they mean by hermeneutic of continuity.
Besides this, they did reply in some specific areas, like religious liberty. Bishop Fellay mentioned that they had in the CNS interview, and summarized Church teaching on the subject of Church and State, as it was before the Council, namely on religious tolerance, with the stipulation that error has no objective right.
-
Well some seem to think that it can be interpreted according to tradition.
We just have to always remember that if it were meant to be interpreted according to tradition, it would have been written that way. . . . . . . . .and since modernism is diametrically apposed to tradition, better to recognize that the whole idea of interpreting according tradition is an outright lie - modernism, being anti-tradition, does nothing according to tradition and everything according to modernism, as is the case with V2.
-
Well some seem to think that it can be interpreted according to tradition.
It is apparent that Fellay thinks that.
-
This is from a sermon I just listened to:
"No. Vatican II is not part of the constant magesterium. It is not. It is a foreign devilish thing that came into the Church for the purpose of destroying souls, and it has been very effective because millions of souls have gone to Hell in the last forty years."
Fr. Pfeiffer does not mince words, does he? And that's what is so great about him and all the priests of the resistance--they speak with such consistent clarity because they tell it like it is! There is nothing for them to hide or mask with dizzying contortions and mental gymnastics.
Being a gear-head of sorts, I've personally found it helpful to see Vatican II as a car that was designed from the very beginning to ultimately do one thing: crash.
What person with a modicuм of commonsense or concern for his loved ones would ever want to waste his time and resources trying to tweak this or that component in it in the hopes of making the car--already doomed by design--somehow . . . "drivable"?
Those who take on the mindset of trying to "fix" Vatican II are either being disingenuous (knowing full well ahead of time that it really can't be done but needing a convenient smokescreen nevertheless) or they simply don't get (or accept) the fact that it was an evil council that deserves nothing short of being chucked out and anathematized for good!
I think it's interesting how Fr. Pfeiffer's style seems to be catching on. He is
waking up the THINKING faculty of our minds. And this has different effects
on different people.
This theme of "a car that was designed from the very beginning to ultimately
do one thing: crash," is rather remarkable.
And then "wasting one's time making the doomed car drivable" is great, too.
-
Hello Neil Obstat!
Thank you for your kind words on the "doomed car" analogy regarding Vatican II.
I also like Bishop Williamson's "poisoned pie" analogy very much, but having a sweet tooth try to avoid any talk about . . . pies!
:ready-to-eat:
-
Bishop Fellay and the rest of the sspx need to stop drinking the cool aid and repent for persecuting the holy clergy and families while remaining silent vatican II sɛҳuąƖ abuse of innocent little children , lesbians and gαy priests,the abortions of babies, ѕυιcιdє, the sacrilege of holy orders and teh holy sacrament of marriage. etc...
The fruits of vatican II are rotten.
Archbishop Lefebvre warned us in his book "Open letter to confused catholics."
-
Modernist Rome must continue to perpetuate the lie that Vatican II was a continuation of the Sacred Tradition and not in conflict with the Sacred Deposit of Faith. This is their only claim to legitimacy. If this falls, they fall.