I'm sorry, but the link does not work for me.

Something is wrong.  Matthew?

Go to the In This Sign You Shall Conquer website and search for the conference under sermons by Fr. David Hewko.

The link you posted, E-M, was overwritten by the CI S-A-D Bot and replaced
with "CathInfo" so it takes you nowhere.  

Anyone who wants to download the Mediafire file (takes about 20 minutes)
can do so HERE.



I am very impressed with this conference, and likewise with the sermon
that preceded it, given during the Mass on May 12th.  

There are a lot of good facts and observations and teachings in both.  

In the Conference, Fr. Hewko quotes from a book by German professor,
Dornan (apparently - I don't know how to spell the name, if anyone can
help that would be great!) and this quote is quite powerful.  

I recommend putting it on an index card, so you can show it to someone
who thinks that "Vatican II's not so bad," or that +Fellay is doing right by
the SSPX in expelling +Williamson and the other priests.  Oh, BTW, ask
them for the name of one priest who was expelled from the SSPX for
teaching heresy, like (for example) the heresy that Vatican II is not so
bad, or the heresy that the religious liberty of Vat.II is very, very limited.
Ask them for the name of one priest who was expelled for teaching
those heresies, or, any other heresy they can think of, like there is
salvation outside the Church, for example, or that Jesus did not rise
from the dead.  

You know, heresy:  any priest that was expelled for teaching heresy.

If they say "+Williamson," then ask, "Oh, really? What was the heresy,
then?"  They will have to do a lot better than +Fellay, who could not find
any heresy that +W had taught.




From the 13-5-12 Conference:

15:30

Fr. Hewko: Modern philosophy is completely sick.  It was
actually condemned by Pius X, all the modern philosophy
of the 17 hundreds, 18 hundreds was condemned.  So,
the Archbishop says this, "Rather, Vatican II is a wholesale
perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based
on modern philosophy, on subjectivism."

Subjectivism is, "I make my own truth." They will ask the
kids in public school, "If there is a tree that falls in the
woods, and there's no ear to hear it, does it make a
sound?" And these IDIOTS will say, "Well, we can't be
sure if it makes a sound, because we can't be sure if it
even exists" [we can't be sure the sound itself exists]. But
Aristotle, and St. Thomas, and common sense tells you  
that, well, whether there's nobody there or not, it makes
a sound.

But, I know, I mean, I'm going to show you how deeply
perverse this is when it touches theology.  We're going
to come here where he touches on that...
 
So, that's the Archbishop on the Council, and I refer you
back to page 13 of Spiritual Journeys, and it's throughout
that book as well, where he says, a priest that wants to
keep his Catholic faith has to steer clear, far away from
the Conciliar Church, or he will lose his faith. And that's
speaking to his own priests.  So why are they dancing  
with the Council now?

17:00

You know?  Now, listen to this!

"A book just published by a German theologian is most
instructive."  This is Professor Dornan -- remember his
works on John Paul II? "It shows how the Pope's thinking,
especially on a retreat," he preached [a retreat] at the
Vatican, which was subjectivist from start to finish, and
when afterwards, when one reads this speech, one
realizes that is indeed his thinking.  It might appear
Catholic, but it is not Catholic.

Now, "The Pope's notion of God, the Pope's notion of
Our Lord comes up from the depths of his
consciousness, and not from any objective revelation to
which he adheres with his mind. No, he constructs the
notion of God.  The Pope said recently in a docuмent" --
incredible! -- "that the idea of the Trinity could only have
arisen quite late, because man's interior psychology had
to be capable of defining the Trinity.  Hence, the idea of
the Trinity did not come from a revelation from outside,
it comes from man's consciousness, inside.  It welled up
from inside man; it came from the depths of man's
consciousness."

Audience:  "That's absolute heresy!  UNBELIEVABLE!!"

Fr. H.:  Yes.  It's absolute heresy. That's John Paul II, and
that just destroys the Catholic Faith right there.  But you
see how perverse it is.  What the Archbishop is saying
here (referring to the material previous to this quote
from Dornan), it's not superficial errors. That's why the
Council (Vat.II) -- Bishop Tissier has been saying this for
many years -- the entire Council just must be BURNT,
thrown to the dump, buried fifteen feet under.

19:00

And then he says here, "Increable!" "Incredible!" A
wholly different version of revelation, a wholly different
version of the Faith, of philosophy, this is very grave, it
is a total perversion, he says.  





To be clear, the 3x5 card ought to have the following
words on the FRONT of it:  


Doctrine of the Trinity ~ Source?

"The idea of the Trinity could
only have arisen quite late,
because man's interior psychology
had to be capable of defining the
Trinity.  Hence, the idea of the Trinity
did not come from a revelation from
outside, it comes from man's
consciousness, inside.  It welled up
from inside man; it came from the
depths of man's consciousness."




On the BACK of this 3x5 card, you should write the following:


"The Pope's notion of God, the Pope's
notion of Our Lord comes up from the
depths of his consciousness, and not
from any objective revelation to
which he adheres with his mind. No, he
constructs the notion of God.  The
Pope said recently in a docuмent,..."
(Read the words that Professor Dornan
of Germany quotes from a docuмent
by Pope John Paul II, over -->)


If the person accidentally reads the BACK first, that's no problem,
but the impact is more potent when he reads the FRONT first, for
then he can have the QUESTION in mind, "Who is this speaking?"
while he reads the FRONT, and only after getting through the
intro on the BACK does he then see the name of JPII there.


Pull this out at an opportune time, when you have someone's
attention, and in very short order you can assess whether they
have any Catholic sense whatsoever.  If they are scandalized
by these words, this is a GOOD thing.  Then you have something
in common.  But if they attempt in any way to make an excuse
for what JPII said here, whether they know it or not, they are
partaking in the Grand Sewer of all Heresies, and it would be
most CHARITABLE of you to inform them of the fact, because
they might never get the chance to hear how abominable their
own misconception is of the Faith of the Catholic Church,
outside of which there is no salvation.

If they have any question about "how do you know this" (or
whatever) you can say, "Are you familiar with the great
encyclical, Pascendi, of Pope St. Pius X?" If they are not
familiar with it, then that's the problem.  They need to get
familiar with it, that is, if they are capable of getting familiar
with it.  For most people today, who are of this way of thinking,
that ecuмenism is good, and it's most desirable to be respectful
of other religions, and that the Jєωs can find salvation in their
waiting for the "redeemer" while they reject Christ, or that
the Mohammedans pray to God even though they think that
Our Lady of Fatima is really the daughter of Mohammad, then
these people will be unable to understand Pascendi, and they
will give up trying to understand it, because they would have
to abandon their false ideas and heretical thinking in order to
really know what it is that Pascendi is teaching.  This applies
to those who would have the Christian Faith.

For those who do not have the virtue of the Faith, it's another
set of bees' wax:

It's possible for a total heretic to read and understand
Pascendi and not believe its teaching, because even at the
time of its dissemination, there were Freemasons and
Modernists who told their students that anyone who wants to
know what Modernism is, should read Pascendi, because it
describes their teaching better than they could ever describe
it themselves.  So if these heretics gave Pascendi to their own
students to read without any fear that it would convert them,
we should not be surprised that this could even now happen
today, over 100 years later.



Pascendi dominici gregiswas disseminated in 1907.