Hindu Ritual Performed at Fatima Shrine

Catholic Family News ^ | June 2004 | John Vennari

[gbcdoj]

Bottom line, Rome isn't Rome. The apostate church is not the Roman Catholic Church.

Bottom line, you are a heretic for rejecting the infallibility of the Roman Church and a schismatic for rejecting the authority of the Vicar of Christ and St. Peter.

By the way, if God asks at the judgment what made you think His Holiness Paul VI was a pertinacious heretic, you'd better have a good answer - you still haven't given me one at all. Of course, the "Credo of the People of God" is totally contrary to Modernism - hard to find heresy there.

[gbcdoj]

Where is the heresy?

WITH THIS SOLEMN LITURGY we end the celebration of the nineteenth centenary of the martyrdom of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and thus close the Year of Faith. We dedicated it to the commemoration of the holy apostles in order that we might give witness to our steadfast will to be faithful to the deposit of the faith[1] which they transmitted to us, and that we might strengthen our desire to live by it in the historical circumstances in which the Church finds herself in her pilgrimage in the midst of the world.

We feel it our duty to give public thanks to all who responded to our invitation by bestowing on the Year of Faith a splendid completeness through the deepening of their personal adhesion to the word of God, through the renewal in various communities of the profession of faith, and through the testimony of a Christian life. To our brothers in the episcopate especially, and to all the faithful of the holy Catholic Church, we express our appreciation and we grant our blessing.

Likewise, we deem that we must fulfill the mandate entrusted by Christ to Peter, whose successor we are, the last in merit; namely, to confirm our brothers in the faith.[2] With the awareness, certainly, of our human weakness, yet with all the strength impressed on our spirit by such a command, we shall accordingly make a profession of faith, pronounce a creed which, without being strictly speaking a dogmatic definition, repeats in substance, with some developments called for by the spiritual condition of our time, the creed of Nicea, the creed of the immortal tradition of the holy Church of God.

In making this profession, we are aware of the disquiet which agitates certain modern quarters with regard to the faith. They do not escape the influence of a world being profoundly changed, in which so many certainties are being disputed or discussed. We see even Catholics allowing themselves to be seized by a kind of passion for change and novelty. The Church, most assuredly, has always the duty to carry on the effort to study more deeply and to present, in a manner ever better adapted to successive generations, the unfathomable mysteries of God, rich for all in fruits of salvation. But at the same time the greatest care must be taken, while fulfilling the indispensable duty of research, to do no injury to the teachings of Christian doctrine. For that would be to give rise, as is unfortunately seen in these days, to disturbance and perplexity in many faithful souls.

It is important in this respect to recall that, beyond scientifically verified phenomena, the intellect which God has given us reaches that which is, and not merely the subjective expression of the structures and development of consciousness; and, on the other hand, that the task of interpretation--of hermeneutics--is to try to understand and extricate, while respecting the word expressed, the sense conveyed by a text, and not to recreate, in some fashion, this sense in accordance with arbitrary hypotheses.

Put above all, we place our unshakable confidence in the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church, and in theological faith upon which rests the life of the Mystical Body. We know that souls await the word of the Vicar of Christ, and we respond to that expectation with the instructions which we regularly give. But today we are given an opportunity to make a more solemn utterance.

On this day which is chosen to close the Year of Faith, on this feast of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, we have wished to offer to the living God the homage of a profession of faith. And as once at Caesarea Philippi the apostle Peter spoke on behalf of the twelve to make a true confession, beyond human opinions, of Christ as Son of the living God, so today his humble successor, pastor of the Universal Church, raises his voice to give, on behalf of all the People of God, a firm witness to the divine Truth entrusted to the Church to be announced to all nations.

We have wished our profession of faith to be to a high degree complete and explicit, in order that it may respond in a fitting way to the need of light felt by so many faithful souls, and by all those in the world, to whatever spiritual family they belong, who are in search of the Truth.

To the glory of God most holy and of our Lord Jesus Christ, trusting in the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, for the profit and edification of the Church, in the name of all the pastors and all the faithful, we now pronounce this profession of faith, in full spiritual communion with you all, beloved brothers and sons.

THE CREDO




WE BELIEVE in one only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creator of things visible such as this world in which our transient life passes, of things invisible such as the pure spirits which are also called angels,[3] and creator in each man of his spiritual and immortal soul.

We believe that this only God is absolutely one in His infinitely holy essence as also in all His perfections, in His omnipotence, His infinite knowledge, His providence, His will and His love. He is He who is, as He revealed to Moses,[4] and He is love, as the apostle John teaches us:[5] so that these two names, being and love, express ineffably the same divine reality of Him who has wished to make Himself known to us, and who, "dwelling in light inaccessible"[6] is in Himself above every name, above every thing and above every created intellect. God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light. The mutual bonds which eternally constitute the Three Persons, who are each one and the same divine being, are the blessed inmost life of God thrice holy, infinitely beyond all that we can conceive in human measure.[7] We give thanks, however, to the divine goodness that very many believers can testify with us before men to the unity of God, even though they know not the mystery of the most holy Trinity.

We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God perfectly one superabound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]

We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. He is the Eternal Word, born of the Father before time began, and one in substance with the Father, homoousios to Patri,[10] and through Him all things were made. He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was made man: equal therefore to the Father according to His divinity, and inferior to the Father according to His humanity;[11] and Himself one, not by some impossible confusion of His natures, but by the unity of His person.[12]

He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. He proclaimed and established the Kingdom of God and made us know in Himself the Father. He gave us His new commandment to love one another as He loved us. He taught us the way of the beatitudes of the Gospel: poverty in spirit, meekness, suffering borne with patience, thirst after justice, mercy, purity of heart, will for peace, persecution suffered for justice sake. Under Pontius Pilate He suffered --the Lamb of God bearing on Himself the sins of the world, and He died for us on the cross, saving us by His redeeming blood. He was buried, and, of His own power, rose on the third day, raising us by His resurrection to that sharing in the divine life which is the life of grace. He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits--those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished.

And His Kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who is Lord, and Giver of life, who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son. He spoke to us by the prophets; He was sent by Christ after His resurrection and His ascension to the Father; He illuminates, vivifies, protects and guides the Church; He purifies the Church's members if they do not shun His grace. His action, which penetrates to the inmost of the soul, enables man to respond to the call of Jesus: Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48).

We believe that Mary is the Mother, who remained ever a Virgin, of the Incarnate Word, our God and Savior Jesus Christ,[13] and that by reason of this singular election, she was, in consideration of the merits of her Son, redeemed in a more eminent manner,[14] preserved from all stain of original sin[15] and filled with the gift of grace more than all other creatures.[16]

Joined by a close and indissoluble bond to the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption,[17] the Blessed Virgin, the Immaculate, was at the end of her earthly life raised body and soul to heavenly glory[18] and likened to her risen Son in anticipation of the future lot of all the just; and we believe that the Blessed Mother of God, the New Eve, Mother of the Church,[19] continues in heaven her maternal role with regard to Christ's members, cooperating with the birth and growth of divine life in the souls of the redeemed.[20]

We believe that in Adam all have sinned, which means that the original offense committed by him caused human nature, common to all men, to fall to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense, and which is not the state in which it was at first in our first parents--established as they were in holiness and justice, and in which man knew neither evil nor death. It is human nature so fallen stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin. We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin, is transmitted with human nature, "not by imitation, but by propagation" and that it is thus "proper to everyone."[21]

We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the cross redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the apostle, "where sin abounded grace did more abound."[22]

We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Baptism should be administered even to little children who have not yet been able to be guilty of any personal sin, in order that, though born deprived of supernatural grace, they may be reborn "of water and the Holy Spirit" to the divine life in Christ Jesus.[23]

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory.[24] In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude.[25] By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement.[26] She is therefore holy, though she has sinners in her bosom, because she herself has no other life but that of grace: it is by living by her life that her members are sanctified; it is by removing themselves from her life that they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for these offenses, of which she has the power to heal her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Heiress of the divine promises and daughter of Abraham according to the Spirit, through that Israel whose scriptures she lovingly guards, and whose patriarchs and prophets she venerates; founded upon the apostles and handing on from century to century their ever-living word and their powers as pastors in the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him; perpetually assisted by the Holy Spirit, she has the charge of guarding, teaching, explaining and spreading the Truth which God revealed in a then veiled manner by the prophets, and fully by the Lord Jesus. We believe all that is contained in the word of God written or handed down, and that the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium.[27] We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the successor of Peter when he teaches ex cathedra as pastor and teacher of all the faithful,[28] and which is assured also to the episcopal body when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium.[29]

We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion. In the bosom of this Church, the rich variety of liturgical rites and the legitimate diversity of theological and spiritual heritages and special disciplines, far from injuring her unity, make it more manifest.[30]

Recognizing also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ of numerous elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to Catholic unity,[31] and believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity,[32] we entertain the hope that the Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock with one only shepherd.

We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church.[33] But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.[34]

We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.[35]

Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine,[36] as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.[37]

The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us.

We confess that the Kingdom of God begun here below in the Church of Christ is not of this world whose form is passing, and that its proper growth cannot be confounded with the progress of civilization, of science or of human technology, but that it consists in an ever more profound knowledge of the unfathomable riches of Christ, an ever stronger hope in eternal blessings, an ever more ardent response to the love of God, and an ever more generous bestowal of grace and holiness among men. But it is this same love which induces the Church to concern herself constantly about the true temporal welfare of men. Without ceasing to recall to her children that they have not here a lasting dwelling, she also urges them to contribute, each according to his vocation and his means, to the welfare of their earthly city, to promote justice, peace and brotherhood among men, to give their aid freely to their brothers, especially to the poorest and most unfortunate. The deep solicitude of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for the needs of men, for their joys and hopes, their griefs and efforts, is therefore nothing other than her great desire to be present to them, in order to illuminate them with the light of Christ and to gather them all in Him, their only Savior. This solicitude can never mean that the Church conform herself to the things of this world, or that she lessen the ardor of her expectation of her Lord and of the eternal Kingdom.

We believe in the life eternal. We believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ--whether they must still be purified in purgatory, or whether from the moment they leave their bodies Jesus takes them to paradise as He did for the Good Thief--are the People of God in the eternity beyond death, which will be finally conquered on the day of the Resurrection when these souls will be reunited with their bodies.

We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in paradise forms the Church of Heaven, where in eternal beatitude they see God as He is,[38] and where they also, in different degrees, are associated with the holy angels in the divine rule exercised by Christ in glory, interceding for us and helping our weakness by their brotherly care.[39]

We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are attaining their purification, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion the merciful love of God and His saints is ever listening to our prayers, as Jesus told us: Ask and you will receive.[40] Thus it is with faith and in hope that we look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Blessed be God Thrice Holy. Amen.

[Viva Christo Rey]

Even under the most wicked of Popes, Rome was never fully un-Catholic.

There are Catholic laity and clerics who are still left in Rome. The traditional order of priests, the Mater Boni Consilii, are one example.

As for those who knowingly, publically and pertinaciously profess heresy, e.g. the heretical doctrines of "Vatican II", especially by those who purport to possess authroity, they are no longer Catholic and hence possess no authority.

As for previous popes who were "not quite up to snuff", whatever there other deficiencies, especially moral ones, they were still Catholic because there was never an example of formal papal heresy until after the death of Pope Pius XII.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

"No longer fully Catholic" is reminiscent of "slightly pregnant".

LOL

[gbcdoj]

As for previous popes who were "not quite up to snuff", whatever there other deficiencies, especially moral ones, they were still Catholic because there was never an example of formal papal heresy until after the death of Pope Pius XII.

Why do you slander Blessed John XXIII? You have provided no proof of notorious heresy on his part - because there is none. Why didn't Card. Ottaviani or Abp. Lefebvre (or anyone!) notice the notorious heresy? Now there's a contradiction - a notorious heresy that no one knew about!

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

If Uncle Walt has his way Rome will abandon support of Russian Catholics. It is shameful.

C_of_D
anti-modernist and therefore, schismatic.

[gbcdoj]

anti-modernist and therefore, schismatic.

He [Cardinal Hoyos] then said, "But we want you to fight Modernism, Liberalism and Masonry in the Church!" (Bishop Fellay, Interview in Latin Mass Magazine)

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

your point?

[gbcdoj]

There are Catholic laity and clerics who are still left in Rome. The traditional order of priests, the Mater Boni Consilii, are one example.

The Mater Boni Consilii are not Catholic, but sedevacantist heretics and schismatics.

You still have to explain away the acceptance of the Novus Ordo Missae by the Roman Church in 1970, before sedevacantism existed - a fact which demonstrates the Novus Ordo is a Catholic rite and not contrary to any divine law, for the Church of the City of Rome cannot fall into error, as was defined by Pope Sixtus IV and taught by St. Bellarmine, Hosius, John Driedo, and St. Cyprian.

As for those who knowingly, publically and pertinaciously profess heresy, e.g. the heretical doctrines of "Vatican II", especially by those who purport to possess authroity, they are no longer Catholic and hence possess no authority.

What heretical doctrines of the Second Vatican Council would these be? Religious liberty is not contrary even to Quanta cura, much less other teachings of the ordinary magisterium, and is implied in Pius XII's address Ci Riesce.

they were still Catholic because there was never an example of formal papal heresy until after the death of Pope Pius XII

John XXII was far more a heretic than Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI were. You'd be better off getting rid of him, too. After all, he taught some rather inconvenient doctrines for those who consider "Quo Primum" inviolate and irreformable.

Quod autem, quod in ratione praedicta praemittitur, videlicet, quod illa, quae per clavem scientiae in fide ac moribus a summis Pontificibus semel sunt diffinita, eorum successoribus revocare non licet in dubium, nec contrarium affirmare, licet secus sit (sicut dicunt) in iis, quae per clavem potestatis per summos Pontifices ordinantur, prorsus sit contrarium veritati, patet ex sequentibus evidenter. (John XXII, Quia quorundam)

[gbcdoj]

anti-modernists are not schismatic.

[Viva Christo Rey]

Nine Ways of Being Accesory to Another's Sin

1. By counsel.

2. By command.

3. By consent.

4.By provocation.

5. By praise or flattery.

6. By concealment.

7. By partaking.

8. By silence.

9. By defense of the ill done.

You each purport to be Catholic, even asserting to be conservative, yet do everything possible to deny the apostasy being committed against Our Lord, His Church, and the Holy Faith.

When cornered you have admitted the heresy by the antipope Karol Wojtyla but have made weak and weary and wrong excuses such as a bishop must declare it to be so (gbcdoj).

Hermann, your recent espousal on another thread to eschew spiritual purity, or even the basics of physical comity, in the reception of the Most Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ as being "over-scrupulous", is especially despicable - even more so the attempt to turn your blasphemy back against others who accused you.

You both have repeatedly, in the face of correction, assaulted the basic tenets of the Faith, twisted the words of others attempting to hold the Faith whole and entire, and generally spew forth the deceptive half-truths of the "father of lies".

You should either openly admit that is him that you serve alone, or repent completely, forswear forever, and publically admit your previous partaking of heresy to all.

If not, I'd advise packing at least SPF 10,000 - not that it will do you a bit of good.

John Paul II giving "communion in the hand".

John Paul II with the Trilateral Commission (Apr. 18, 1983).

John Paul II with the B'nai B'rith (Mar. 22, 1984).

John Paul II at the Roman synagogue (Apr. 13, 1986).

John Paul II with heretics, schismatics and pagans at Assisi (Oct. 27, 1986).

Small statue of Buddha on an altar at Assisi.

Zoom-in on tabernacle area of previous photo.

John Paul II being anointed with the pagan "Sign of the Tilak".

John Paul II at "Mass" in Papua, New Guinea (May 8, 1984) where the epistle is read by a bare-breasted woman.

John Paul II Kissing the Koran

[AskStPhilomena]

"He [Cardinal Hoyos] then said, "But we want you to fight Modernism, Liberalism and Masonry in the Church!" (Bishop Fellay, Interview in Latin Mass Magazine)"

Isn't it interesting that Cardinal Hoyos would turn to the SSPX with this request? Do you think His Eminence might distrust the likes of Kasper, Lehmann, Mahony, Sodano, Re etc etc etc. to accomplish this task?
Oops, we wouldn't want to be too critical now - unless of course we're pointing out problems with previous popes - not Pope John Paul "the Great", nor those hand-piecked for his sacred college of cardinals.

[AskStPhilomena]

"anti-modernists are not schismatic"

You certainly make sense sometimes.

[gbcdoj]

John Paul II giving "communion in the hand".

Communion on the hand is an ecclesiastical tradition, since it was the practice of the early Church as attested to by St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Basil. It is not at all heretical, as you would know if you had a clue about Catholic theology and even the most elementary church history.

It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.  All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home.  And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes.  For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.  And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.  It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time. (St. Basil the Great, Letter 93)

John Paul II being anointed with the pagan "Sign of the Tilak".

This has already been refuted many times. Don't slander the Pope - you know perfectly well it is no such thing.

John Paul II at "Mass" in Papua, New Guinea (May 8, 1984) where the epistle is read by a bare-breasted woman.

Even if we were to grant that this was scandalous, sinful, etc. (something I do not), it is not heretical. Unless Kerry's "Pope Pius XXIII" has defined recently the dogma that "having a bare-breasted woman read the Epistle is heretical".

Why not answer my question - where is the pertinacious heresy of Blessed John XXIII or Paul VI? Instead you show pictures of John Paul II - totally aside from the discussion of your slander of Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI. Either show what dogmas they notoriously rejected or stop calumniating them. How about it? A good start would be explaining how the "heretic" Paul VI managed to pronounce the totally orthodox Credo I have posted here. Perhaps he was a hidden heretic, pretending to be orthodox? LOL

[broadsword]

For what? What are you talking about?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

anti-modernists are not schismatic"

You certainly make sense sometimes

baby steps, baby steps.

[ultima ratio]

Disagree. The Vatican institution is comprised of loyal Catholics as well as apostates. It is not clear the Pope is in charge. So the situation is unclear.

[ultima ratio]

There is clearly a disconnect between what's going on under the aegis of the present Vatican apparatus and formal pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Allowing Hindu priests to use Catholic auspices to pray to pagan gods is clearly not Catholic--and not all the citations from past councils and popes in the world can squeeze this square peg into a round hole.

By the way, I notice you don't use bold fonts to highlight the exception pronounced by Pius IX: "SO ONLY IT DOES NOT TOUCH THE DOMATA OF FAITH AND MORALS." You might also have quoted his famous admonition that when a pope does not teach Catholic doctrine, we should not follow him.

Moreover, you are again deceiving others by quoting the passage on schism which cannot possibly refer to Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact, the Pope showed his intolerance for Catholic Tradition by asserting a schism had occurred that hadn't. He did so in a letter--not formally--and said so wrongly, since no member of SSPX has ever denied papal authority--though the SSPX DID deny that this Pope was orthodox and it DID defend against his heterodox assault on Catholic Tradition and the ancient Mass in particular. For this we should give thanks--and judge this Pope as he deserves to be judged--as someone who has done and is still doing great damage to the Church.

John Paul II is probably a material heretic. That does not mean he is a formal heretic--which would mean the chair of Peter is vacant--but it does mean he should not be followed in his radical ecumenism which is syncretic and indifferentist--offenses condemned by preconciliar pontiffs. This pontificate is pushing an agenda that has nothing whatever to do with Catholicism or the salvation of souls and is an attempt to establish a new pan-religion by means of the destruction of whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic. This is heretical and should be resisted by all genuine Catholics.

[ultima ratio]

Posting nonsense again I see. Here is Brian Harrison's rebuttal of the heretical views of Cardinal Kasper, whom JPII saw fit to elevate to the princedom of the Catholic Church not too long ago. (Why hold a little bit of heresy against him?) This is taken from "Fr. Eamon Bredin and the Resurrection," Living Tradition, September 1988:

______________________________________________________

Our author goes on to quote with approval Walter Kasper, who maintains that although Mark's tomb story is older and less "legendary" than the others, "It is clear that in its present form at any rate, it is in no way a historical account." 29 If Mark's account, and therefore the more "legendary" ones as well, are "in no way" historical, that means they are substantially non-historical. Fr. Kasper's reasons for saying this appear ostensibly to be largely literary ones. As quoted by Fr. Bredin, he says that in Mark's empty tomb narrative,

"We are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening. Everything is clearly constructed to lead very skilfully to the climax of the angel's words: 'He is risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him'" (16:6). 30

For the substantial non-historicity of the "tomb stories," then, we have been offered only two pieces of "evidence," namely, the (supposed) incompatibility of the details in the respective Gospel accounts, and the alleged literary skill of Mark in presenting his account. But this is completely unconvincing. If several witnesses write an account of some dramatic event - say, a fire in a large building - some years after it took place, we will almost certainly find some discrepancies of detail - differences, for instance, as to what time it broke out, how long it took to be extinguished, how many people were seen to jump from its windows, and so on. But what serious historian would take this as evidence that the reports were "in no way historical," and that perhaps the fire never took place at all?

Likewise, the argument from literary style proves nothing at all. Even if Mark had written his account even more "skilfully" - in the form of exquisite poetic verses, let us say - that would not be an argument against its historicity. Gerard Manley Hopkins, for example, wrote a very moving poem, "The Wreck of the 'Deutschland,'" after reading in a newspaper an eyewitness account of this real-life shipwreck. He kept to the essential facts, even while expressing them in a creative and imaginative way. Any critic who argued from the mere fact of the poetic literary form adopted by Hopkins to the non-historicity of what he describes would of course be deceiving himself. Moreover, one suspects that in the case of Kasper's argument from the absence of conventional historical form to non-historical content in the Gospel "tomb stories" there is an additional fallacy - that of begging the question. What evidence does Fr. Kasper offer for his claim that the form of these stories is not in fact that of conventional historical writing or fact-reporting, but rather, that of "a narrative intended as the basis for a cultic ceremony"? 31 One would want to ask Fr. Kasper, "Supposing the women did in fact go to the tomb on the first day of the week, find it empty, and meet an angel who told them that Christ had risen from the dead; how in that case would a normal first-century historical form of reporting these extraordinary events differ significantly from the form which we in fact find in Mark's canonical account?" One suspects that no convincing answer at all would be forthcoming; certainly, Fr. Kasper himself offers none. This in turn strongly reinforces one's suspicion that Kasper's appeal to style and form is only a smokescreen: he seems to have judged the form of these stories to be non-historical simply because of their content; that is, because of what they say rather than how they say it. Thus, Fr. Kasper feels entitled to call Mark's mention of the angel a "stylistic device," not because of the way the evangelist talks about the angel, but simply because he talks about it at all. Angels as such are to be understood as a "stylistic device."

In short, we are told that the content is not historical because the form is not historical (which in itself would be a non-sequitur), only to find out that the reason for judging the form to be in fact non-historical is its (self-evidently) non-historical content - angels appearing and bodies being raised to life.

The exegetical arguments offered here for "non-historicity" are in themselves so transparently flimsy, as we have seen, that we doubt they could convince men as intelligent as Kasper and Bredin unless bolstered up by some powerful "hidden persuader," such as a philosophical world view which excludes direct or miraculous actions of God in the physical order as outside the realm of the possible or credible. But, as Pope John Paul II affirmed in a recent catechetical address, such a world view "clashes with the most elementary philosophical and theological idea of God." 32 Disbelief in miracles (in the true and proper sense of sense-perceptible events which cannot be explained by secondary, natural causes) is thus radically incompatible with Christian faith. 33 Yet this indeed seems to be very close to the world view of Fr. Kasper as recently, at least, as the mid-seventies. 34 He then wrote of the theological "task of coming to terms with the modern understanding of reality as represented primarily by the natural sciences" (as if there were only one such "modern understanding"). 35 Kasper continues:

"The premiss of the scientific approach is a wholly law-bound determination of all events. ... In scientific theory there is no room for a miracle in the sense of an event with no physical cause and therefore no definable origin." 36

That Fr. Kasper is confusing this particular philosophical position with real science - in the sense of certain and true knowledge which "modern" man just has to accept - becomes clear a little further on, when he tells us that any "miraculous" event

"always comes about through the action of created secondary causes. A divine intervention in the sense of a directly visible action of God is theological nonsense." 37

On the contrary: it is precisely this opinion of Fr. Kasper - which amongst other things would presumably rule out such "directly visible actions of God" as the raising of a dead body and a virginal conception - that seems like theological (and philosophical) nonsense. Why should the One who created the material universe from nothing find it impossible or unseemly to work further marvels?

[ultima ratio]

Viva Christo Rey defends the faith--which is more than you do who genuflect to every abomination spawned by this heterodox pope. Viva is doing what any sound Catholic should do--tell Rome to go shove it, when they come up with deceits and heresies in an attempt to have the faithful follow them into heresy. That goes double for the indefensible Kasper. If he is sedevacantist, it is no wonder, given the outrages that have come out of Rome on a steady basis.