Maurice Pinay Blog: Vatican 'Jew' Enforces Vatican II
???Who wants to be accepted???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The whole meaning of the Apostolic Fathers' term "Catholic" (Greek: Katholike) as they coined it and used it in the Greek they wrote in, is literally the "omnipresent eternal principal" by which we who worship only God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are governed. It does NOT mean the damnable Satanic idea of ratification by which anything that a "Pope" declares is suddenly ratified by God - even if it was never true before and even if it contradicts the faith. That is a Romanist Vaticanist heresy since the 12th century and nothing else. We do not worship "Church," or "Peter," or "Pope,"or any other idol. We worship, as Jesus Christ taught us to: only God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The ekklesia (translated as church, but literally in the Greek meaning 'those called out') which Jesus Christ founded is governed by this "omnipresent eternal principal," this "Catholic" principal.
By the Rev. T.C.G. Glover,
an Oratorian Canonist, who worked for the Vatican for many years.
Voices are heard saying that Mons. Lefebvre and Mons. de Castro Mayer, together with the four bishops they consecrated on 30th June 1988, have been excommunicated for schism. The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism. Generally, they ignore the fact that there are plenty of traditional priests running Mass Centres who are not members of the Society of St Pius. X, and include these as schismatics and so excommunicated. The facts do not support them.
There is no dispute that the episcopal Consecrations took place without a Pontifical Mandate, it is, without the Pope’s permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a Pontifical Mandate incurs excommunication 'latae sententiae', and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. Excommunication is of two types: 'latae sententiae' and 'ferendae sententiae'. The first type is often called automatic, as the delinquent incurs it simply by committing the offence specified in the law, whereas the second type requires the intervention of a judge or superior to impose the penalty
On 1st July 1988, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops (the old Consistorial Congregation) issued a decree declaring that all six bishops were excommunicated. As the penalty is 'latae sententiae', this is not a condemnatory sentence imposing a penalty, but a declaratory sentence saying that the penalty has been incurred by the violation of the penal in question. To many, this will seem the end of the matter: the six bishops broke a law of whose existence all were aware, and which carries with it automatic excommunication. This is not so.
First, no penalty is ever incurred without Brave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7). This means, in the moral theologian's terminology, subjective mortal sin. The Archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of additional priests to provide the laity with Mass and the Sacraments. He acted only after years of thought, and many months of protracted negotiations with the Holy See and a similar intention and careful consideration can be discerned in the other five bishops. Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin.
Secondly, Canon 1323.4 states that even where an offence carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. Again, it is clear that it was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests which caused the Archbishop and his Co-consecrator to act: as they did, after all hope for a 'reconciliation' with Rome had proved groundless.
There is a very old 'rule of law' (Regulaluris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal law: Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari. In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that it has not been incurred. It is not, therefore, necessary to prove that the Consecrations were morally innocent and done under necessity; it is enough to show sufficient serious arguments to establish that there is a doubt, so the six bishops are not excommunicated under Canon 1382.
But the decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops goes further by declaring the six bishops to be schismatics and so also automatically excommunicated under Canon 1364.1. It further warns the faithful that if they support “the schism of Mons. Lefebvre, they too will be ipso facto excommunicated”. This charge involves a large and unjustified mental leap. It is made by the Pope in his Apostolic letter 'Ecclesia Dei' of 2nd July 1988. Speaking of the Consecrations, he writes:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implied in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.
It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff of refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority.
The child who says, 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother; the soldier ordered to polish his buttons by his officer, who instead smokes a cigarette, is not denying the validity of the Queen's Commission. Again, for the charge of 'Schism' to stick, it must be certain beyond all reasonable doubt. In a word, the six bishops have not incurred excommunication for schism so those who adhere to them cannot be excommunicated either. There is indeed more muddled thinking here.
The phrases 'followers of Mons. Lefebvre', 'Lefebvrist Mass Centres', 'Lefebvre priests' are frequently used. They imply that Mons: Lefebvre is the head of the Society of St Pius X. He is not. Fr Schmidberger has been Superior-General for five years, and has District Superiors under him.
Even if the six bishops had been excommunicated for illegal consecrations and schism, it would not in itself affect the others. If a retired Benedictine bishop were to be excommunicated, it would not mean that Benedictines throughout the world, and those who hear Mass in Benedictine churches, were excommunicated. Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes will full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!
The point may seem academic: to support a schismatic against the Pope and 'adhere' to him is to join in his schism; but we have shown that the charge of schism will not stick. Even if it did, it would not automatically involve the laity who attend Mass Centres in excommunication. Canon 844.2 allows the faithful to seek the Sacraments of Communion, Penance and Extreme Unction even from non-Catholic ministers (provided their Orders are valid), if it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister. This Canon has caused great scandal amongst traditional Catholics but it is, of course, accepted by the Pope! Even the old Code allowed access to an excommunicated priest in certain cases of necessity. And there is no doubt that it is often physically impossible to receive traditional Sacraments, except from a priest who supports the actions of Mons. Lefebvre. This does lead to another point. Traditional Catholics have become used to defending their actions, justifying their attendance at Masses not authority by the local bishop, and so on. This article is written in a similar strain, showing on the basis of Canon Law that the six bishops are not excommunicated either for illegal Consecrations or Schism, and in consequence, that other traditional priests and lay people are not excommunicated either. But it is a mistake to leave the question on this defensive note.
It is for the Pope and bishops to justify their actions. They have abandoned the traditional rites of Mass and the Sacraments, they have allowed heresy to be taught, and abuse to abound throughout the Church. Traditional Catholics have merely remained faithful to what the Church has always taught and done, and this fidelity to tradition is the sole cause of all their problems with authority. We now have the ludicrous episode of the Holy See condemning the six bishops in the Church who are clearly Catholics! There may be plenty of others, but their Catholicism is no longer manifest, and their attitude over the past 20 years puts it in doubt.
It is now for the Pope and those who claim to be 'faithful' to him to explain their actions, and to show that they are still Catholics. The six bishops involved in the events of 30th June have made their orthodoxy clear."
(Published in "The Northern Catholic", November, 1988)
Vatican 'Jew' Enforces Vatican II
Church should not accept members who deny Vatican II, official says???Who wants to be accepted???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The whole meaning of the Apostolic Fathers' term "Catholic" (Greek: Katholike) as they coined it and used it in the Greek they wrote in, is literally the "omnipresent eternal principal" by which we who worship only God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are governed. It does NOT mean the damnable Satanic idea of ratification by which anything that a "Pope" declares is suddenly ratified by God - even if it was never true before and even if it contradicts the faith. That is a Romanist Vaticanist heresy since the 12th century and nothing else. We do not worship "Church," or "Peter," or "Pope,"or any other idol. We worship, as Jesus Christ taught us to: only God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The ekklesia (translated as church, but literally in the Greek meaning 'those called out') which Jesus Christ founded is governed by this "omnipresent eternal principal," this "Catholic" principal.
Jesus Christ blessed Peter when he made confession of the truth in Christ. That confession is the rock of truth upon which the ekklesia of Christ is founded. (The ekkelsia = those called out from the gates of hell.) Neither the human being Peter nor any supposed claimants on earth to any succession from Peter are the rock. What we are called out from is the "gates of hell." Those who obey and stay out of, who come out from the gates of hell, out of the realm of the ruler (the Devil) of this fallen world system are the faithful to Jesus Christ and are His church who the gates of hell will not prevail against. (The fallen world system = all the infidel religions including magic-astrology-sorcery and divination, Hinduism, Voodoo, Zoroastrianism - Parseeism, Buddhism, Jainism, Bahai, Judaism, Pantheism-Atheism-Communism, Secularism, Vatican II-ism [pretend traditionalism as an excuse to have ANYTHING to do with Vatican II], ecumenism, Christian Zionism --- ad nauseaum.)
All the "Popes" since 1958 (john xviii, paul vi, john paul i, john paul ii, benedict xvi) have been practicing Satanists. Vatican II is Babylon and has fallen - the faithful are commanded to come out of her and those apostates who don't will share in her plagues and be damned eternally at the end of those plagues.
The miserable garbage that is Vatican II is just the end of the long line of heresies that finally totally destroyed ANY faith in the Diabolic shell that squats in Rome and vomits the lie that it is the "Church."
The command to be separate is a COMMAND from God and it is not optional. To NOT obey that command is to make anyone who does not obey and which they are to blame for not obeying it, trapped by Satan within the gates of hell and they with Satan will be damned by God eternally.
Today, Vatican = Gates of Hell = Babylon
See this.
The Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist given him by
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
with full Concordance and Commentary
And go to this link (and scroll down to) for: Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Eucharist
Sunday, January 22, 2012
18.
1 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 10:1; Ezek.: 43:2
2 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 14:8!; Isaiah: 13:21, 22!
3 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 14:8; 17:2; Jer.: 51:7!; Rev.: 18:9, 15
4 … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:45!; 2 Cor.: 6:17!; Eph.: 5:7!; 1 Tim.: 5:22
5 … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:9
6 … Scripture reference – Jer.: 50:29!; 2 Thess.: 1:6
7 … Scripture reference – Isaiah: 47:8
8 … Scripture reference –
9 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 18:3; 17:2; 18:18
10 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 18:15, 16, 17
11 … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27;32!
12 … Scripture reference –
13 … Scripture reference –
14 … Scripture reference –
15 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 18:3, 10
16 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 17:4
17 … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27:29, 30!; Rev.: 18:10
18 … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27:29, 30!; Rev.: 18:9
19 … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27:29, 30!, 32, 33!
20 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 12:12
21 … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:63, 64
22 … Scripture reference – Ezek.:26:13!; Jer.: 25:10!
23 … Scripture reference – Jer.: 25:10!
24 … Scripture reference – Rev.: 16:6!
note on Scripture reference - ! is the core explanatory scripture reference.
The Fall of Babylon
Rv:18:
1 ¶ And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 10:1; Ezek.: 43:2
2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen: and is become the habitation of devils and the hold of every unclean spirit and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: … Scripture reference – Rev.: 14:8!; Isaiah: 13:21, 22!
3 Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication: and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; And the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 14:8; 17:2; Jer.: 51:7!; Rev.: 18:9, 15
Her Sins and Punishment
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins and that you receive not of her plagues. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:45!; 2 Cor.: 6:17!; Eph.: 5:7!; 1 Tim.: 5:22
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven: and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:9
6 Render to her as she also hath rendered to you: and double unto her double, according to her works. In the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 50:29!; 2 Thess.: 1:6
7 As much as she hath glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her. Because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen and am no widow: and sorrow I shall not see. … Scripture reference – Isaiah: 47:8
8 Therefore, shall her plagues come in one day, death and mourning and famine. And she shall be burnt with the fire: because God is strong, who shall judge her.
Dirge of the Kings
9 ¶ [1] And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived in delicacies with her, shall weep and bewail themselves over her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning: … Scripture reference – Rev.: 18:3; 17:2; 18:18
10 Standing afar off for fear of her torments, saying: Alas! alas! that great city, Babylon, that mighty city: for in one hour is thy judgment come. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 18:15, 16, 17
Dirge of the Merchants
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her: for no man shall buy their merchandise any more. … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27;32!
12 Merchandise of gold and silver and precious stones: and of pearls and fine linen and purple and silk and scarlet: and all thyine wood: and all manner of vessels of ivory: and all manner of vessels of precious stone and of brass and of iron and of marble:
13 And cinnamon and odours and ointment and frankincense and wine and oil and fine flour and wheat and beasts [2] and sheep and horses and chariots: and slaves and souls of men.
14 And the fruits of the desire of thy soul are departed from thee: and all fat and goodly things are perished from thee. And they shall find them no more at all.
15 The merchants of these things, who were made rich, shall stand afar off from her, for fear of her torments, weeping and mourning, … Scripture reference – Rev.: 18:3, 10
16 And saying: Alas! alas! that great city, which was clothed with fine linen and purple and scarlet and was gilt with gold and precious stones and pearls. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 17:4
17 For in one hour are so great riches come to nought.
Dirge of the Mariners
And every shipmaster and all that sail into the lake, and mariners, and as many as work in the sea, stood afar off, … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27:29, 30!; Rev.: 18:10
18 And cried, seeing the place of her burning, saying: What city is like to this great city? … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27:29, 30!; Rev.: 18:9
19 And they cast dust upon their heads and cried, weeping and mourning, saying: Alas! alas! that great city, wherein all were made rich, that had ships at sea, by reason of her prices. For, in one hour she is made desolate. … Scripture reference – Ezek.: 27:29, 30!, 32, 33!
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven and ye holy apostles and prophets. For God hath judged your judgment on her. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 12:12
The Angel’s Promise
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone, as it were a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying: With such violence as this, shall Babylon, that great city, be thrown down and shall be found no more at all. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 51:63, 64
22 And the voice of harpers and of musicians and of them that play on the pipe and on the trumpet shall no more be heard at all in thee: and no craftsman [3] of any art whatsoever shall be found any more at all in thee: and the sound of the mill shall be heard no more at all in thee: … Scripture reference – Ezek.:26:13!; Jer.: 25:10!
23 And the light of the lamp shall shine no more at all in thee: and the voice of the bridegroom and the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee. For thy merchants were the great men of the earth: for all nations have been deceived by thy enchantments. … Scripture reference – Jer.: 25:10!
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all that were slain upon the earth. … Scripture reference – Rev.: 16:6!
(DRV)
[1] -Ver. 9-19. This passage is not an account of a vision but rather a direct prophecy, after. the manner of the prophecies of Isaias and Ezechiel concerning Tyre. Tyre furnishes a type of the vengeance of God upon satanic pride and luxury.
[2] -Ver.13. Beasts [of burden]: the Greek has “cattle.”
[3] –Ver. 22 The city had boasted previously of her craftsmen, skilled in every craft.
Posted by Patron St. Stephen Protomartyr ستيف في فيستا at 6:42 PM
______________________________________
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made it very clear that he was consecrating bishops when he did in 1988 because of the total lack of declared faith and any Catholicity in the Vatican II sect. Pope Gregory XVII (Cardinal Siri before his election in 1958) died in exile in 1989. There is no Catholicity left since then in the Papacy of Rome - it is Apostate and defunct and non-existent as any Catholic witness or congregation. Since that time the SSPX has sold its soul for a bowl of porridge to be accepted by the same Vatican Apostates that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre so heroically withstood. Now the SSPX is as Apostate as the Vatican. The Freemason "decoy" Williamson has made an issue of arguing the numbers of the holocaust myth in order to deflect attention from that fact. They are all Apostate and the faithful must have nothing to do with them nor their Vatican masters.
By the Rev. T.C.G. Glover,
an Oratorian Canonist, who worked for the Vatican for many years.
Voices are heard saying that Mons. Lefebvre and Mons. de Castro Mayer, together with the four bishops they consecrated on 30th June 1988, have been excommunicated for schism. The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism. Generally, they ignore the fact that there are plenty of traditional priests running Mass Centres who are not members of the Society of St Pius. X, and include these as schismatics and so excommunicated. The facts do not support them.
There is no dispute that the episcopal Consecrations took place without a Pontifical Mandate, it is, without the Pope’s permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a Pontifical Mandate incurs excommunication 'latae sententiae', and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. Excommunication is of two types: 'latae sententiae' and 'ferendae sententiae'. The first type is often called automatic, as the delinquent incurs it simply by committing the offence specified in the law, whereas the second type requires the intervention of a judge or superior to impose the penalty
On 1st July 1988, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops (the old Consistorial Congregation) issued a decree declaring that all six bishops were excommunicated. As the penalty is 'latae sententiae', this is not a condemnatory sentence imposing a penalty, but a declaratory sentence saying that the penalty has been incurred by the violation of the penal in question. To many, this will seem the end of the matter: the six bishops broke a law of whose existence all were aware, and which carries with it automatic excommunication. This is not so.
First, no penalty is ever incurred without Brave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7). This means, in the moral theologian's terminology, subjective mortal sin. The Archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of additional priests to provide the laity with Mass and the Sacraments. He acted only after years of thought, and many months of protracted negotiations with the Holy See and a similar intention and careful consideration can be discerned in the other five bishops. Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin.
Secondly, Canon 1323.4 states that even where an offence carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. Again, it is clear that it was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests which caused the Archbishop and his Co-consecrator to act: as they did, after all hope for a 'reconciliation' with Rome had proved groundless.
There is a very old 'rule of law' (Regulaluris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal law: Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari. In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that it has not been incurred. It is not, therefore, necessary to prove that the Consecrations were morally innocent and done under necessity; it is enough to show sufficient serious arguments to establish that there is a doubt, so the six bishops are not excommunicated under Canon 1382.
But the decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops goes further by declaring the six bishops to be schismatics and so also automatically excommunicated under Canon 1364.1. It further warns the faithful that if they support “the schism of Mons. Lefebvre, they too will be ipso facto excommunicated”. This charge involves a large and unjustified mental leap. It is made by the Pope in his Apostolic letter 'Ecclesia Dei' of 2nd July 1988. Speaking of the Consecrations, he writes:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implied in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.
It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff of refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority.
The child who says, 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother; the soldier ordered to polish his buttons by his officer, who instead smokes a cigarette, is not denying the validity of the Queen's Commission. Again, for the charge of 'Schism' to stick, it must be certain beyond all reasonable doubt. In a word, the six bishops have not incurred excommunication for schism so those who adhere to them cannot be excommunicated either. There is indeed more muddled thinking here.
The phrases 'followers of Mons. Lefebvre', 'Lefebvrist Mass Centres', 'Lefebvre priests' are frequently used. They imply that Mons: Lefebvre is the head of the Society of St Pius X. He is not. Fr Schmidberger has been Superior-General for five years, and has District Superiors under him.
Even if the six bishops had been excommunicated for illegal consecrations and schism, it would not in itself affect the others. If a retired Benedictine bishop were to be excommunicated, it would not mean that Benedictines throughout the world, and those who hear Mass in Benedictine churches, were excommunicated. Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes will full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!
The point may seem academic: to support a schismatic against the Pope and 'adhere' to him is to join in his schism; but we have shown that the charge of schism will not stick. Even if it did, it would not automatically involve the laity who attend Mass Centres in excommunication. Canon 844.2 allows the faithful to seek the Sacraments of Communion, Penance and Extreme Unction even from non-Catholic ministers (provided their Orders are valid), if it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister. This Canon has caused great scandal amongst traditional Catholics but it is, of course, accepted by the Pope! Even the old Code allowed access to an excommunicated priest in certain cases of necessity. And there is no doubt that it is often physically impossible to receive traditional Sacraments, except from a priest who supports the actions of Mons. Lefebvre. This does lead to another point. Traditional Catholics have become used to defending their actions, justifying their attendance at Masses not authority by the local bishop, and so on. This article is written in a similar strain, showing on the basis of Canon Law that the six bishops are not excommunicated either for illegal Consecrations or Schism, and in consequence, that other traditional priests and lay people are not excommunicated either. But it is a mistake to leave the question on this defensive note.
It is for the Pope and bishops to justify their actions. They have abandoned the traditional rites of Mass and the Sacraments, they have allowed heresy to be taught, and abuse to abound throughout the Church. Traditional Catholics have merely remained faithful to what the Church has always taught and done, and this fidelity to tradition is the sole cause of all their problems with authority. We now have the ludicrous episode of the Holy See condemning the six bishops in the Church who are clearly Catholics! There may be plenty of others, but their Catholicism is no longer manifest, and their attitude over the past 20 years puts it in doubt.
It is now for the Pope and those who claim to be 'faithful' to him to explain their actions, and to show that they are still Catholics. The six bishops involved in the events of 30th June have made their orthodoxy clear."
(Published in "The Northern Catholic", November, 1988)